K CHATTOPADHYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Gajuvaka Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C, in the year 1979. On 17.03.2002, he was conducting a city service on Route No. 65. A check was effected, and a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner framing two charges. The first was that the Petitioner did not observe the rule 'issue and start at TIC point' and the second was that he collected Rs. 10/- from a passenger and returned Rs. 2/- instead of Rs. 2.50 ps., and did not issue the ticket. The Petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that the passenger was in a drunken condition and did not pay any fare at all. It was also stated that the checking officials themselves found him to be intoxicated and the passenger was taken to the nearby police station where a penalty of Rs. 15/- and regular fare of Rs. 7.50 ps., was collected and the ticket was issued.

(2.) The 2nd Respondent was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Petitioner and ordered departmental enquiry. An enquiry report was submitted on 24.05.2002, holding that the charge against the Petitioner was proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd Respondent passed an order, dated 16.07.2002, directing removal of the Petitioner from service. The departmental remedies of appeal and review were not fruitful. The Petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and was tried as I.D. No. 98 of 2007. Through award, dated 11.02.2009, the Labour Court held that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence, the Writ Petition.

(3.) Smt. Dyumani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is inconsistent and even the checking officials were not clear as to their version. She contends that, on the one hand, the alleged statement of the drunken passenger was taken on its face value and, on the other hand, not only the very person was produced before the police station, but also the fare and fine were collected, and ticket was issued. She submits that the Enquiry Officer observed at one place that the allegation of the Petitioner that the passenger was in a drunken condition cannot be accepted and at the end of the report, he stated that the intoxicated condition of the passenger cannot be taken advantage of, by the Conductor. Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner rendered unblemished service since 1979 and he was removed from service without any basis.