THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.19130 of 2006

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned award, dated 20.02.2006 made in I.D. No.54 of 2003, published on 19.05.2006 in so far as treating the removal period as not on duty, and denying the notional increments and other back wages as illegal. Consequently, direct the respondents to pay the back wages along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:-

That the petitioner joined in the services of the respondents’ Corporation as a driver on 28.12.1987 on regular basis. Since then, he worked continuously with clean record of service till he was removed from service by the 2^nd respondent vide order dated 10.07.2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made an appeal to the DVM, and review to the 1st respondent and these were dismissed vide respective orders, dated 23.09.2002 & 27.01.2003. As such, questioning the action of the respondents, the petitioner raised a dispute vide I.D. No.

54 of 2003 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad.

4. The petitioner was asked to operate the bus service namely TIMS from Bodhan to Hyderabad. However, he requested not to send him as he was not conversant with the TIMS nor with the duties of the conductor. Yet, he was sent on the said service forcibly without conductor. Thereby, with great care and diligence, he was operating the said service and while so, the check was taken place while proceeding from Bodhan to Hyderabad at stage No.2/3 alleging certain irregularities. For which, the petitioner explained that he did not commit any irregularities as alleged and it might be due to not properly functioning of TIMS. But, the 2nd respondent without considering the same as well as his past service has suspended the petitioner from service and issued the chargesheet on 10.05.2002 alleging following charges:

1. For having violated the rule of ‘Issue & Start’.

2. For having collected an amount of Rs.300/- from batch of 3 passengers including one chargeable child and reissued used TIMS ticket bearing No.11923, dt.05.02.2002 worth of Rs.51/- only and failed to issue TIMS tickets to two other passengers who boarded the bus at Bodhan, bound for Hyderabad ex. stages 01 to 05.

3. For having collected an amount of Rs.522/- from

6 individual passengers towards their journey from Nizamabad to Hyderabad ex. stages 2 to 5 and reissued used TIMS ticket bearing No.32607 dt.14.02.2002 of Rs.93/-, 8418 dt.16.03.2002 of Rs.186/-, 3231 dt. 24.04.2002 of Rs.87/-, 32608 dt. 14.04.2002 of Rs.93/-, 10568 dt. 08.02.2002 of Rs.93/- and 3230 dt. 24.04.2002 of Rs.186/- while you were performing duty on 01.05.2002 on route Bodhan to Hyderabad via Nizamabad, with vehicle No. AP-10Z-7438 with TIMS machine.

4. For having collected an amount of Rs.109/- each totally Rs.545/- from 5 individual passengers and reissued used TIMS ticket bearing Nos.3253 dt.21.04.2002 of Rs.102/-, 3255 dt.21.04.2002 of Rs.218/- and 9153 dt. 06.04.2002 of Rs.218/- who boarded the bus at Bodhan and bound for Hyderabad ex. stages 1 to 5.”

5. For the above charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation explaining that he issued the tickets to the passengers, which were printed and given by the TIMS fixed to the service. However, after enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. While removing the petitioner from service, the respondents have failed to consider the said ticket issuing machine was not properly functioning and thereby it was giving the wrong words and dates. The same was also reported by the TTIs through their special report. Hence, the action of the respondents is bad in law.

6. After filing the counter and documents by the respondents, the court below held that the enquiry as valid and on