Common Order:

1. Writ Petition No.14436 of 2010 is filed by the Corporation seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Award dated 23.09.2008 in I.D.No.16/2006 passed by respondent No.2, and to quash the same as being illegal and invalid.

2. Writ Petition No.15933 of 2015 is filed by the workman seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Award dated 23.09.2008 in I.D.No.16/2006 passed by respondent No.2, and to quash the said Award insofar as it relates to non-granting of back wages, continuity of service and other attend benefits and for consequential relief.

3. Since both the Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Award passed in the same I.D., the Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

4. Writ Petition No.14436 of 2010 is taken up as a lead case insofar as the facts are concerned. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in WP.No.14436 of 2010.

5. Heard Smt S.Varalakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for petitioner-Corporation and Sri Sankarshan, learned counsel, representing Smt K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel-on-record for respondent No.1-workman.

6. Briefly stated, the facts that led to filing of the present Writ Petitions are that respondent No.1-workman joined the service of petitioner-Corporation as Conductor in the month of November, 1989 and his services were regularised w.e.f. 01.07.1991; that while so, on 18.04.2005, while he was conducting the bus on Chegunta to Medak route, a check was conducted by checking officials and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected; that not being satisfied with the spot explanation given by respondent No.1, charge memo was issued and he was placed under suspension; and that later, charge sheet was issued on 23.04.2005 with the following charges:-

               1. For having collected fare of amount of Rs.11/- from a two batch of 4 passengers who boarded the bus at Chengunta and bound for Medak ex-stages 7 to 1 and issued ticket bearing No.225/683272 to 75 of Rs.11/- denomination E.4, the above tickets were already issued in 9-10 hrs trip Chegunta – Medak, thus you have re-issued the above tickets, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC, Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.

               2. You have closed the STAR upto Stage No.6/5, without completing the above charge -1 tickets, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC, Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.

6.1. That a regular enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that the charges levelled against respondent No.1 were proved and as such, respondent No.1 was removed from service on 29.09.2025. After exhausting the departmental enquiry, respondent No.1 raised a dispute in ID.No.16 of 2006 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad, which by the impugned Award, set aside the order of removal and directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate respondent No.1-workman into service as fresh Conductor, however, without continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the said Award insofar as it orders reinstatement of workman into service, the Corporation filed WPNo.14436 of 2010 and that, insofar as non-granting of the continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits, the workman filed WPNo.15933 of 2015.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submitted that respondent No.1-workman having collected fare from four passengers re-issued the tickets which were already issued in the previous trip, and further he closed the STAR without completing the tickets, which acts constitute misconduct, as per Regulation-28(x) of APSRTC, Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963; that though respondent No.1-workman participated in the enquiry, he declined to cross-examine the witnesses who deposed on behalf of the Corporation and he also did not adduce any evidence in support of his plea of defence that he is not guilty; that the Enquiry Officer after considering the material on record, has rightly held that the charges levelled against respondent No.1-workman are proved.

               7.1. He further submitted that in the impugned Award, though the Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that misconduct of respondent No.1-workman was clearly established, however, by showing misplaced sympathy and taking into consideration his 16 years length of service, erred in ordering his reinstatement into service. Hence, he prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-workman submitted that respondent No.1-workman has not committed any irregularity in issuing the tickets and in fact, one K.Ravi, alleged passenger, who was examined during the domestic enquiry, has clearly stated that in the course of checking, when the TTIs asked to show the tickets, the same were not found in his pocket and immediately, they picked up the old tickets from the floor of the bus and showed the same to the TTIs. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of the said witness was not properly appreciated either by the Enquiry Officer or the Labour Court and both the authorities have come to erroneous conclusion that respondent No.1-workman committed misconduct by re-issuance of tickets to four passengers.

               8.1. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has a clean record and there is no previous misconduct, but these aspects were not considered by the Labour Court and it erred in not granting continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits while directing reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service.

               8.2. He further submitted that even assuming that the charges levelled against respondent No.1-workman were taken as true, the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of proven misconduct and hence, the Labour Court has rightly set aside the said punishment, but, it ought to have ordered reinstatement into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. By contending thus, he prayed to allow the Writ Petition filed by the workman.

9. A perusal of record shows that there is no dispute with regard to the check conducted by the officials on the bus being conducted by respondent No.1 as Conductor on 18.04.2005 and the respondent No.1 being placed under suspension therefor for the alleged misconduct of re-issuance of tickets to four passengers and for not closing STAR for the said tickets.

10. It is relevant to note that when respondent No.1 was afforded opportunity to give spot explanation, he stated that the key numbers of Block of tickets issued to the alleged four passengers and the key number of the earlier tickets are one and the same, therefore, he got confused. Except the above, respondent No.1 has not offered any plausible explanation. Therefore, in the absence of satisfactory explanation by respondent No.1 for the alleged misconduct, the Labour Court has come to a categorical finding that there is clear misconduct on the part of respondent No.1, however, taking into consideration his length of service of 16 years in the petitioner-Corporation, it ordered for reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service as Conductor afresh.

11. It is not the case of petitioner-Corporation either that there are any previous allegations or misconduct or irregularities on the part of respondent No.1 in discharge of his duties. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that the punishment of removal of petitioner from service is grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct and the Labour Court has rightly reinstated respondent No.1-workman into service as Conductor afresh.

12. Insofar as the relief of continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits is concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant the same in view of the proven misconduct of respondent No.1 and also the fact that he had chosen to file the Writ Petition against the Award of the Labour Court in the year 2015, i.e., nearly after seven years from the date of passing of the Award by the Tribunal, and the said delay and laches on the part of respondent No.1 cannot be ignored, in the absence of any convincing or plausible reasons for the same.

13. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the impugned Award does not warrant interference by this Court and both the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

14. As a result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

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