B DEVADANAM Vs. LABOUR COURT III

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award dated 06-04-1999, passed by Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad, in I.D. No.44 of 1996, is called in question in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in 1979 with respondent No.2- APSRTC. On 17-12-1993, while he was conducting the bus service on the route Haliya to Miryalaguda, a check was exercised, and for certain irregularities, he was issued a charge memo. Thereupon, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 23/12/1993. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted into the charges. The Enquiry Officer having conducted the enquiry, held the charges proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry report, a notice dated 7/6/1994 calling upon the petitionerto show cause as to why he shall not be removed from service was issued to the petitioner. Upon considering the explanation submitted by the petitionerthereto, vide order dated 29/6/1994, the petitioner was ordered to be removed. The appeals preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal, were rejected by the authorities vide theirorders dated 20-03-1995 and 18-10-1995. Assailing the order of removal, the petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.44 of 1996, which the Labour Court vide the award impugned in the writ petition, dismissed the I.D. confirming the order of removal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the two checking officials who is inimical to the petitioner, was examined, while the other checking official was not examined, and as such, the enquiry stood vitiated. He submitted that the material collected by the checking official from the passengers at the time of check, was not proved in the departmental enquiry, and as such, it cannot be used against him. In support of his contention that evidence collected in the preliminary enquiry cannot be used against the delinquent employee unless it is proved in the departmental enquiry, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in K. David Wilson v. Secretary to Government. He submitted that the petitioner has not misappropriated any amounts, much less the ticket amounts, and this is evident from the fact that no excess cash was found with the petitioner when the check was exercised. He submitted that the petitioner has issued tickets to the passengers before starting of the bus from Haliya, and this is evident from the fact that the Controller at Haliya had also made an endorsement. The petitioner instead of punching Stage Nos.1 to 7 had punched Stage Nos.7 to 1, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner had closed the S. R. at each stage, which was admitted even by the checking officials, the question of the petitioner re-issuing the used tickets, does not arise, and at the most it can be said to be a case of wrong punching. He submitted for the act of wrong punching, the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate, and at any rate, not commensurate with the proved misconduct. And inasmuch as the Labour Court has not considered the question whether the punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can consider the said question and interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority and the Labour Court, if it is not commensurate, and in this context, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in DM. Manager, L/C, Visakhapatnam v. S.S. Rajarf, and prayed that the punishment be modified.