ARAVA MASTHANANUMA Vs. DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation, apart from perusing the record. The present writ petition is filed questioning the award in I.D. No. 103 of 1999 dated 08.05.2002, whereby a direction was given to the respondent corporation to appoint the petitioner as a fresh employee by reducing salary by four annual increments with cumulative effect, apart from directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- before the fresh appointment coming into effect. Resultantly, the petitioner was denied continuity of service as well as back wages. It was sought to be declared illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, having a small child, went on 01.03.1998 to Rajampet bus depot to apply for leave, but was forced to attend duty in view of shortage of manpower. As she was in a highly disturbed state of mind, while on duty, the petitioner seemed to have committed some clerical errors in noting down the correct ticket position in her S.R. Later the Chief Inspector, after verifying the S.R. at the time of remittance, pointed out that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities in issuing tickets. Based on it, the following charges were framed:

(3.) From the record, it is evident that though the petitioner submitted her explanation and later participated in inquiry, eventually the departmental proceedings resulted in the removal of the petitioner from service through order dated 05.08.1998. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent-Corporation dated 05.08.1998, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D. No. 103 of 1999. After appreciating the entire evidence, the Tribunal has felt that it serves the interests of justice, if a lenient view is taken on the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances as have been narrated in the said order. Accordingly, an award was passed setting aside the termination order. However, as a matter of modified punishment, the Labour Court has directed the respondent-Corporation to issue a fresh appointment to the petitioner after reducing her salary by four annual increments with cumulative effect. It is in addition to imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the petitioner to be paid before she joined the service as a fresh candidate.