HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No. 5447 OF 2018

O R D E R:

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Award dated

16.10.2017 in I.D.No. 42 of 2024.

2. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver in the respondent – State-owned Corporation in 2000. While he was on duty on bus plying between Hyderabad - Godavarikhani, on 17.09.2013, he was also entrusted the duty as conductor. When the bus reached Godavarikhani bus station, a check was carried out and alleging misconduct, charges of cash and ticket irregularities were imposed against him. According to petitioner, Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry without following the procedure as contemplated under law and without giving any reasons based on the evidence, held that charges were proved against him. Though he submitted a detailed explanation, the 3^rd respondent - disciplinary authority removed him from service through proceedings dated 01.04.2014. It is the plea of petitioner that passengers have categorically stated before the Enquiry Officer that they have not paid the requisite fare to him, hence, the question of committing misappropriation does not arise. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner is stated to have filed appeal and revision

before the authorities and the same were rejected. Finally, he raised I.D. No. 42 of 2014 before the 4th respondent, which, according to petitioner, without appreciating any evidence on record, dismissed the same by the order impugned.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Siddharth Goud submits that the Labour Court failed to see that allotting a TIM Service to driver is contrary to the provisions of the Transport Act. The labour Court having held that passengers in question categorically stated before the Enquiry Officer that they did not render requisite fare to petitioner, failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the finding that passengers in question are not supporting the case of respondent Corporation, the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the case of petitioner, argues learned counsel.

4. In the counter filed on behalf of respondent Corporation, it is stated, during his service period, petitioner is bereft of clean record. He was imposed with the following penalties.

i) Censured for having committed C&TI case on 03.01.2012 vide Order No.02/95(126)/2012-GDK, dt.07.05.2013.

ii) Placed under suspension on 30.09.2013 for having committed C&TI case on 17.09.2013.

iii) Removed from service w.e.f. 01.04.2014 vide proc. No.02/95 (204)/2013-GDK, dt.01.04.2014.

With regard to the subject charges, the Enquiry Officer conducted detailed enquiry duly following principles of natural justice and submitted his report opining that petitioner had collected requisite fare of Rs.128/- (E1 Rs.64/-), but not issued tickets to two passengers (E-2) stage No.1 (Godavarikhani). Based on the available evidences on record, the Enquiry Officer concluded that charges levelled against petitioner were proved. The Depot Manager imposed penalty of removal from service and accordingly, petitioner was removed from service with effect from 01.04.2014. It is stated, from the findings given in the I.D., it is very clear that petitioner failed to issue tickets to two passengers, thought he collected Rs. 128/-. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the Enquiry Report. Petitioner claims that punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportion to the alleged misconduct. In the case on hand, it was specifically alleged that petitioner collected Rs. 128/- towards fare of two tickets from Karimnagar to Godavarikhani, but failed to issue tickets. He wanted to misappropriate the said amount. It may be true that the amount involved in the case is very less, but that is not the criteria to be considered. Petitioner wanted to commit fraud and misappropriate bus cash. Therefore he is not entitled to any lenient view.

5. Heard Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learne