APSRTC, HYDERABAD Vs. K RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was employed as a Conductor in Gajuwaka Depot of APSRTC in the year 1987. When he was conducting a bus, on Root No. 22, a check was conducted on 24.8.2001, between stages 5 and 4. It was found that four passengers were holding tickets of Rs. 10/ - denominations, which are unconnected with the way bill and statistical report, issued to him. In other words, the respondent was said to have re -issued used tickets. A charge memo, dated 28.4.2004 was issued alleging the acts of misconduct. The respondent submitted an explanation and not finding the same to be acceptable, the second appellant ordered domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 4.8.2000, holding that four charges framed against the respondent are proved. Accepting the same, the second appellant passed an order, dated 3.11.2000 removing the respondent from service. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, being I.D. No. 85 of 2002, before the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court passed a Nil award on 19.1.2005 and dismissed the I.D. challenging the same, the respondent filed WP No. 17517 of 2005. By the time the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the respondent attained the age of superannuation. Through order, dated 2.8.2013, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the award of the Tribunal, and consequently the order of removal. It was directed that the respondent shall be entitled to be in service from the date of removal till he attained the age of superannuation and that he shall be entitled to all attendant benefits as well as back wages. The said order is challenged in this writ appeal.

(2.) SRI Srinivas Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court categorically found that the tickets that were found from four passengers were, in fact, handled by the respondent about one week prior to the check. He submits that the same clearly establishes that the respondent issued the used tickets in respect of a different route and that there cannot be any better example of cash and ticket irregularities than this. He submits that the learned Single Judge was mainly impressed by the fact that the passengers from whom the incriminating tickets were recovered were not examined; for allowing the writ petition and that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He submits that the Labour Court happens to be the final authority on facts and that there is no justification for the learned Single Judge to hold that the charges against the respondent are not proved.

(3.) SRI Subhan, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal did not take into account, the fact that four passengers were from whom the tickets recovered, are from Orissa and not conversant with Telugu Language, and they have produced certain tickets, which were issued to them on previous occasions. He submits that the illegal acts resorted to by the passengers in producing unconnected tickets, cannot be the basis to impose the serious punishment of removal against the respondent.