V.SHIVANANDAM Vs. DEPOT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award dtd. 31/3/2006 in I.D.No. 143 of 2004 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani is sought to be set aside by way of this Writ Petition. A consequential direction is also sought to respondent Depot Manager to reinstate petitioner into service with all benefits including full backwages.

(2.) The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation in 1988. On 10/4/2004, while he was on duty on route Utnoor-Kagazanagar-Adilabad, a surprise check was exercised at stage No. 17, a charge memo was issued and thereafter, was placed under suspension. Charge sheet was issued on 27/4/2004 alleging cash and ticket irregularities. Questioning the said charge sheet, Writ Petition No. 8841 of 2004 was filed, which by order dtd. 5/5/2004, was dismissed with a direction to the respondent to conduct departmental enquiry after considering the explanation submitted by petitioner. However, the respondent without considering the explanation, got the enquiry conducted. A show cause notice was issued on 6/8/2004 for which petitioner submitted explanation requesting to consider statements of bus driver and independent witnesses, passengers, who were examined during enquiry. The respondent, however, without considering the same, passed the order of removal dtd. 16/8/2004. Petitioner is stated to have preferred Appeal unsuccessfully. Questioning the order of removal, petitioner raised the subject I.D. mainly on the ground of validity of domestic enquiry. The Tribunal by order dtd. 31/10/2006 dismissed the Dispute holding that domestic enquiry was validly conducted.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit, it is stated by the respondent Corporation that petitioner was engaged as a daily wage conductor with effect from 17/11/1987, later his services were regularised in the post of Conductor with effect from 1/7/1988. It is their case that earlier, he involved in serious cash and ticket irregularities and was removed from service on 13/12/1991. Through Award in I.D.No. 35 of 1992 dtd. 18/2/1994 on the file of Labour Court, Godavarikhani, he was reinstated into service as a fresh conductor. Second time also, he involved in serious cash and ticket irregularities on 27/2/1995 and was removed from service on 15/6/1995. Through Award dtd. 23/6/2000 in I.D.No. 95 of 1996 on the file of Labour Court, Godavarikhani, he was again reinstated into service. It is stated that while petitioner was discharging duties on route Kagaznagar - Adilabad on 10/4/2004, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected, for which charge memo was issued and petitioner having acknowledged the same, did not submit any explanation. Therefore, charge sheet was issued on 27/1/2001, duly placing him under suspension. The disciplinary authority ordered domestic enquiry to be conducted into the charges. Meanwhile, petitioner submitted his reply on 17/5/2004 along with a copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 8841 of 2004. In the said Writ Petition, it was held that charge sheet and suspension order issued by the respondent does not suffer from any legal infirmity which warrants interference and accordingly, Writ Petition was dismissed with a direction to respondent to conduct departmental enquiry after considering the explanation submitted by him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As the said explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, enquiry into the charges was directed to be initiated. Petitioner having received enquiry notice, participated in the enquiry and Deputy Superintendent (Traffic) of Utnoor and Ch. Balaji, driver of Utnoor Depot were examined in support of the charges in his presence. He also availed the opportunity of cross-examination of management witnesses and produced A.Sudhrshan, to support his case. Petitioner satisfied with the manner in which enquiry was conducted. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, Enquiry Officer held that petitioner is guilty of charge levelled against him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority addressed letter daed 17/7/2004 and 27/7/2004 to petitioner calling for his objections on the enquiry duly enclosing proceedings thereof for which he submitted comments on 6/8/2004. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service dtd. 16/8/2004, duly issuing show cause notice dtd. 6/8/2004. Though petitioner submitted reply, he did not put-forward any fresh points. It is stated that petitioner availed the remedy of Appeal and Review and both of them were rejected.