Disciplinary actions must consider intent and circumstances surrounding alleged misconduct, ensuring punishment is proportionate to the situation.

ORDER:

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Award dated 15.05.2006 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’) in I.D.No.52 of 2004.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1984 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.07.1987. On 04.04.2002, while the petitioner was conducting the bus from Armoor to Manthani, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Manthani and issued Memo alleging that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities and the petitioner submitted explanation to the said Memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent suspended the petitioner from service. Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved.

(b) A final show-cause notice of removal was issued to the petitioner on 27.07.2002. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said show-cause notice. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 16.08.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed departmental appeal and review and the same were rejected on 01.12.2002 and 12.08.2003 respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.52 of 2004 before the Labour Court and the same was allowed in part on 15.05.2006.

(c) Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court insofar as denial of back wages, attendant benefits and treating the removal period as not on duty is contrary to the material available on record. The Labour Court, having coming to the conclusion that there was every possibility of missing of passengers in the overload of 108 passengers against the capacity of 60 passengers, that the passengers in question accepted their guilty and paid penalty and that the respondents ought not to have imposed the punishment of removal from service and ought to have granted the relief of back wages, attendant benefits and should have treated the removal period as on duty. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to grant back wages, attendant benefits and treat the interregnum period of removal as on duty and allow the writ petition.

4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the year 1984 and later his services were regularized. While in service, he was imposed with several punishments. Earlier, he was removed from service on 22.07.1994 and later he was reinstated as a fresh conductor on 10.04.1997. Earlier, the petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularities and he was removed from service on 10.07.1997 and later he was reinstated into service on 16.02.1998. Thereafter, he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities on 04.04.2002. The respondents have issued charge-sheet on 20.04.2002 framing the following charges :-

“1. For having failed to collect requisite fare of Rs.3/- each in total Rs.21/- and issue ticket to seven passengers who boarded the bus at Pipri and found alighting at Manthani ex.stages 2 to 3 without tickets which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.

2. For having kept ticket tray numbers of Rs.3/- denomination blank in the SR against stage No.3 and closed the remaining tray numbers which the TTIs marked ‘XXX’