( 1 ) BRIEFLY stated, the writ petitioner s case before the learned single Judge was that he was illegally removed from service by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation by an order dated 29-12-1989 after he had put in almost three years of service by that time as conductor. His appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority was rejected on 24-3-1990.

( 2 ) THE petitioner - appellant was facing three charges that he had collected Rs. 1. 25 ps. from a batch of eight passengers, who were found alighting from the bus without tickets at Muthyampet, and that he had already closed the ticket tray of all denominations against stage No. 8. Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him for the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner - appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him. But according to the petitioner, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse, one sided and were based on mere surmises and conjectures. He (Enquiry Officer) did not assign any valid reason why the petitioners evidence and the evidence of his witnesses which had remained unchallenged by the 2nd respondent - Corporation did not appeal to him in preference to oral testimony of the interested witnesses like checking officials and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not sustainable in law.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to inflict the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the same, but according to the petitioner, as apprehended by him, the 2nd respondent mechanically passed the final order of his removal from service. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submitted a memo before him stating that the matter may be decided under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, according to the petitioner, it was the bounden duty of the 1st respondent to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue, in accordance with the orders passed by this High Court in WA No. 324/1990 dated 16-3-1990 and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the award of the 1st respondent was vitiated by material irregularities and that the same was contrary to the law laid down by this High Court.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge elaborately considered the legal and factual aspects concerning the subject-matter of the case and observed in his impugned order as under :"in the context of employment of a conductor in the Corporation and the duties and functions attached to the post of conductor, the quantum of embezzlement or misappropriation cannot be a relevant consideration. There is absolutely no scope for any conductor to misappropriate the revenues of the Corporation in hundreds or thousands at a time. When a check is exercised on a particular day and at a particular stage, the checking officials may only detect the ticket and cash irregularities committed by the conductor within the few stages preceding the stage at which the check is exercised. Such detection may reveal misappropriation of few rupees only, I can take judicial notice of the fact that in hundreds of cases decided by this Court involving misappropriation of the revenues of the corporation by its conductors, the money involved was always only few rupees and in most of the cases it was less than Rs. 10. 00. Therefore, the quantum of amount misappropriated at a particular stage cannot be a safe and reasonable yardstick to determine the quantum of punishment. What is material and relevant is whether the complained act of the conductor reflects a propensity to be corrupt and dishonest. If the conductor s conduct reflects such objectionable trait, then, it can reasonably be expected that he would translate this prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document