LAWS(APH)-1990-1-12

P MALLAIAH Vs. DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC NARASAMPET

Decided On January 15, 1990
P.MALLAIAH Appellant
V/S
DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, NARASAMPET Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a conductor in the 2nd respondent APSRTC. He was found guilty of charges namely collecting fare from nine passengers and failure to issue them tickets of violating the rule 'issue-and-proceed', and misbehaving with checking officials and instigating the passengers in the bus against the checking officials, shouting in a high-pitched voice saying" I am a Naxalite, I am not a good person, I will see your end and I have kicked B Krishnaiah D M (Divisional Manager) etc., at the domestic enquiry held by the 2nd respondent, and he was removed from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner approached the Government and the matter was referred to the first respondent Industrial Tribunal in I A No. 392/86. The Tribunal found the removal of the petitioner was justified.

(2.) The petitioner was conducting the bus AAZ 4329 which was plying between Narsampet to Godavari Khani on 15-8-83. On being checked by the checking staff it was found that nine passengers were not issued tickets though they paid the fare. The petitioner received the charge memo and submitted his explanation on 24-8-83. An enquiry was held and the enquiry officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the said notice. The petitioner was removed from service by the order dated 13-3-84 and the departmental appeal and review petition were rejected.

(3.) Sri Biksbapat by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was vitiated, inasmuch as an inferior officer conducted the enquiry whereas an officer superior to the enquiry officer was said to have been kicked by the petitioner. He further submitted that the Tribunal was in error in taking into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner which did not form part of the charge and was not a part of the record.