1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Award in ID.No.35 of 2013, dated 24.07.2014 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and to declare the same as bad, arbitrary, illegal for not awarding continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages to the petitioner and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details are that the petitioner was appointed as Casual Conductor in respondent No.1- Corporation in the year 1996 and his services were regularised on 01.08.1997; while so, on 06.09.2011, when the petitioner was conducting the bus from Gandhar to Nizamabad, a check was conducted by the officials and he was found to have committed cash and ticket irregularities; that a charge memo was issued on the same day and subsequently, charge sheet was issued on 17.09.2011 with charges which read as under:-

               “For having re-issued tickets bearing Nos.556/1755596 of Rs.5/- deno. E.2 which is already issued on the same day i.e. on 06/09/2011 in second trip to two passengers duly collecting correct requisite fare of Rs.5/- for each who have boarded your bus at Makloor and bound for Dassnagar, Ex.stages 4/3 to 3/2, which clearly speaks that you have re-issued the above E.2 tickets of Rs.5/- and defrauded Rs. 10.00 legitimate revenue of the Corporation for yourself gain, while performing duty on route Gandhar, on 06/09/2011 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi-a) & (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Reg, 1963.

               2. "For having seized the TPT ticket bearing Nos.556/1756339 to 175640 of Rs.5/- deno. E.2 and torn them and tried to tampering the evidences/records, further you have shown the ticket sales of Rs.5/-deno Nos. as 556/175589 to 599, but during the check only E.2 tickets of Rs.5/- and defrauded Rs.10/- legitimate revenue of the Corporation for yourself gain, while performing duty on route Gandhar, on 06/09/2011 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi-a) & (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963".

               3. "You have not co-operated with TTIs during the course of check and tried to tore the passenger statement recorded by the TTIs and also the charge memo, later after refused to councelled/convinced by the TTIs, you have acknowledged the charge memo issued by the TTIs. While performing duty on route Gandhar, on 06/09/2011 which constitutes misconduct interms of Reg.28(vii) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Reg. 1963".

               4. "For having failed to follow the rule "Issue correct tickets to all the passengers in the bus" all the above acts are constitutes serious misconduct, while performing duty on route Gandhar, on 06/09/2011 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi-a) (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Reg. 1963".

3.1. That a regular enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and consequently, the petitioner was removed from service on 24.01.2012; that after exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner raised ID.No.35 of 2013 before the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide Award dated 24.07.2014, partly allowed the said ID and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service as fresh Conductor without back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the denial of back wages and attendant benefits and continuity of service, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner relates to reissuance of tickets to two passengers, however, in fact, the said two passengers stated to the petitioner that they have student bus passes, therefore, tickets were not issued to them; that when check was conducted by the officials, the said two passengers have picked up two tickets from the floor of the bus and shown the same to the checking officials stating that the petitioner has issued the said tickets and that basing on the statement of the said two passengers, the charges were framed against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner did not reissue tickets to the said two passengers and in fact, believing the words of the said two passengers that they have student passes, he did not issue tickets to them, therefore, there is no misconduct or irregularity on the part of the petitioner and this aspect was not properly considered by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court and both the authorities have come to erroneous conclusion that the petitioner has committed cash and ticket irregularities. He further submitted that in any event, the punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner, therefore, the impugned Award requires interference by this Court and finally, prayed to allow the Writ Petition, granting continuity of service as well as consequential benefits and back wages to the petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Corporation submitted that three charges were framed against the petitioner besides reissuance of two tickets, i.e., the petitioner did not co-operate with the checking officials and tried to tear the passenger statement recorded by the checking officials and also refused to acknowledge the charge memo, which constitutes serious misconduct as per the APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

               5.1. He further submitted that the petitioner is a repeated offender; that previously also, the petitioner was found involved in as many as 19 cases regarding cash and ticket irregularities, insubordination, etc., and he was censured, placed under suspension, removed from service and later on was reinstated into service and annual increments were also deferred number of times and thus, considering the serious repeated misconduct of the petitioner, the Labour Court has rightly ordered to appoint the petitioner as fresh Conductor without any benefits. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned Award and hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of any merits.

6. A perusal of the impugned Award discloses that the Labour Court has, on due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has come to conclusion that the petitioner has committed irregularity in issuing tickets, failed to close the tray and also failed to properly account for the tickets issued and further observed that two tickets issued in the previous trip were reissued and held that the petitioner was liable for punishment. With regard to proportionality of punishment imposed on the petitioner, the Labour Court has come to conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate and highly excessive to the charges levelled against the petitioner and as such, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has put in reasonable period of service and as it is difficult for him to secure alternative employment, the Labour Court held that by giving fresh appointment denying continuity of service, back wages and attend benefits will be sufficient punishment and also meet the ends of justice, and that the petitioner will have one more chance to reform himself and conduct properly and the respondent officials will also have an experienced person and accordingly, partly allowed the ID, vide the impugned Award.

7. Further scrutiny of the impugned Award, clearly shows that the Labour Court has considered all the aspects thoroughly and has recorded elaborate reasons for appointment of the petitioner as fresh Conductor, by taking a lenient view though the charges were proved and by considering the length of service put in by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the past record of the petitioner, is of the considered view that the Labour Court has passed a reasoned Award and the petitioner is not entitled to or deserve any further indulgence by this Court.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Award and accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, theWrit Petition is dismissed.

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.