THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

Assailing the award dated 14.07.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal (for short, ‘the Labour Court’), in I.D.No.130 of 2003, the present writ petition was filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Badili Conductor in the respondent Corporation during April 1996, and his services were regularized w.e.f., 13.06.1997. On 11.01.2001, while discharging his duties in bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 3977, en route Parkal-Laxmidevpet at Stage No.6/7 (Chelpur), at about 19-40 hours, a check was exercised, wherein, the petitioner was alleged to have been involved in cash and ticket irregularities. As such, he was issued with a charge memo dated 20.01.2001, leveling four charges against him. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.01.2001. However, an enquiry office was appointed and after the conduct of an enquiry, the enquiry report dated 14.05.2001 was submitted, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, resulting in his removal from service vide proceedings dated 05.09.2001. Aggrieved by the said removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and review, which were also rejected vide orders dated 27.12.2001 and 04.01.2003 respectively. As such, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Labour Court and filed I.D.No.130 of 2003, which was dismissed vide impugned award dated 14.07.2006, confirming the order of removal. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while the petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 20.01.2001 he was never served with any material or relevant documents along with the said charge memo. In spite of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.01.2001, denying the charges. However, a domestic enquiry was ordered and conducted in violation of the Rules, which concluded with the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. However, the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and not based on material evidence, as none of the passengers were summoned as witnessed during the enquiry proceedings. However, none of these aspects were properly appreciated by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. It is further contended that the Labour Court had grossly erred in observing that the petitioner was habitual offender of cash and ticket irregularities, by allowing the passengers to travel without tickets or by colleting lesser than the requisite fare. Further, the petitioner had a clean service record without any blemish from the superiors. As such, the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the I.D. filed by the petitioner vide impugned award dated 14.07.2006. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that a check was exercised on 11.01.2001en route Parkal-Laxmidevpet at Stage No.6/7 (Chelpur), at about 19-40 hours, wherein, the petitioner was found to have involved in serious cash and ticket irregularities, by collecting a fare of Rs.2/- each from a batch of four passengers and failed to issue the tickets. As such, a charge memo dated 20.01.2001 was issued and an enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules in force, wherein, the charges leveled against the petitioner were held proved. Therefore, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 05.09.2001, and his appeal and review were also rightly rejected vide orders dated 27.12.2001 and 04.01.2003 respectively, confirming the punishment of removal from service for the proven misconduct. As such, the Labour Court, while declining to interfere with the removal order, has rightly dismissed I