SUDERSHAN T Vs. LABOUR COURT GODAVARIKHANJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as Conductor in the services of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') was conducting the bus on the route from Parkal to Huzurabad on 26-8-1982. A check was exercised by the checking officials of the Corporation at Stage No.11 /10. Certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected at the time of the check. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the spot explanation offered by the delinquent, issued the charge memo containing eight charges. Further the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered to the charge sheet, held a domestic enquiry appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after holding the enquiry found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority after consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and after due application of mind, thought it fit to remove the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. That led to the institution of Industrial Dispute No.126 of 1989 before the Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The learned presiding officer of the Labour Court, after re- appraisal of the evidence on record, recorded the finding that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. There after wards, the learned presiding officer examined whether the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him as required under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and after such exercise, the learned presiding officer thought that there was no case to interfere in the matter. Hence this writ petition by the delinquent.

(2.) Mr. R.N. Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the first place, was notable to assail convincingly the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, and the Labour Court on the charges. However, Mr. Reddy quite strenuously contends that there was absolutely no mala fide intention on the part of the delinquent to misappropriate funds of the Corporation. He would point out that the very fact that when the check was exercised, the delinquent did not close the S.R. indicates that there was no mala fide intention to misappropriate the funds. Secondly Mr. Reddy would contend that at any rate the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the delinquent.

(3.) I do not find any force in either of the two contentions of the learned counsel. When the check was exercised, the checking officials found that the delinquent did not issue tickets to as many as 20 passengers. The check was exercised at a distance between five and six K.ms. from the point of boarding. The checking officials also found that as many as seven passengers covered by charge No.2 were found alighting from the bus, without buying the tickets. Therefore, on account of the negligence, the Corporation suffered loss. The question whether this lapse on the part of the delinquent was actuated by any motive,or it was only an innocent act, may not assume much importance in the sense that whether the act was motivated or innocent, the resultant position was that the Corporation suffered financial loss. It is hardly necessary that a Conductor in the service of the Corporation is a trustee of the funds of the Corporation and the major portion of the revenue of the Corporation is collected through the Conductors. Before the public transport corporation in our State and elsewhere introduced the rule of "issue and start", invariably whenever check was exercised by the checking squad, the defence of the Conductors used to be that they were very much in the process of issuing the tickets, and the falsity of such a plea could not have been properly proved for want of evidence. Under those circumstances, the rule "issue and start" was conceived and brought into force. The rule "issue and start" is not directory, and in the context referred above, it should be held to be as a mandatory rule. Unless this rule is insisted, there is every possibility for unscrupulous Conductors to misappropriate the valuable revenue of the Corporation. A misconduct in a departmental enquiry is never considered to be a crime. It is quite often described as a civil wrong or civil offence. Therefore, the proof of the charge is required to be grounded on preponderance of probabilities, and not on the basis of metis rea or guiltymind. In this case, even after covering the distance of five to six K.ms. from the point of boarding, the Conductor did not issue tickets to as many as 20 passengers, and out of these 20 passengers, seven passengers were found alighting without tickets at Stage No.10. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first contention of the learned Counsel which should deserve acceptance.