THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.13003 of 2009

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2006 passed in I.D.No.26 of 2005 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’).

2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

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

(a) The petitioner joined the service of the respondents' Corporation as a Conductor on 21.01.1997 and his services were regularized on 01.01.1998. On 08.12.2003, while the petitioner was conducting the bus service in between Ieeja and Sindhanoor, a check was exercised at Stage No.10 i.e., Merridoddi and issued a memo alleging as follows :-

“(1) I forgotten to observe the rule of issue of tickets and start ;

(2) Collected Rs.13/- each from (2) passengers and not issued tickets to them who found travelling from Ieeja and Sindhanoor and (3) closed the SR upto stage No.10.”

(b) The petitioner filed an explanation to the said charge memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent suspended the petitioner on 15.12.2003 and issued charge-sheet framing the following charges.

“1. For having failed to observe the rule issue and start which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a)

of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

2. For having collected an amount of Rs.26.00 at the boarding point Ieeja itself and failed to issue tickets to a batch of two (2) passengers, who were traveling without tickets from Ieeja to Sindhanoor (ex-stage Nos.8 to 15), which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a)

of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

3. For having closed the SR against the stage No.10 without issuing the tickets to above two passengers which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.

1963.”.

(c) The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the charges levelled against him. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent passed order dated 17.04.2004 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2004. Challenging the order, dated 30.09.2004, the petitioner filed I.D.No.26 of 2005 before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 18.09.2006. Questioning the order, dated 18.09.2006, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the material on record. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that the passengers in question clearly deposed that due to their own fault, they could not tender the fare at the rate of Rs.13/- each inspite of conductor’s request. With regard to the said deposition, neither the enquiry officer sought any clarification nor the passengers in question were cross-examined by the TTIs.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not collected fare of Rs.13/- as alleged by the respondents. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer is nothing but perverse, as the petitioner has not issued tickets to the passengers in question for not tendering Rs.13/- each towards fare. The 1^st respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed the order dated 17.04.2004 removing the petitioner from service and the same was erroneously confirmed by the appellate authority as well as Labour Court.

6. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the Award dated 18.09.2006 passed in I.D.No.26 of 2005 by the Labour Court and allow the writ petition.

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

(a) The petitioner joined the service of the Corporation on 21.01.1997 a