1. Present writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 26.06.2002 passed in I.D.No.282 of 2000, to the extent of denial of back wages and continuity of service, though petitioner came to be reinstated into service, to be illegal and unconstitutional.
2. (a) Petitioner claims to be appointed as a Conductor on 10.04.1992 under “Bread Winner Scheme” due to death of his father. On 06.03.1997, while he was on duty en route Banaganapalle to Chemmai, the Zonal Enforcement Squad, Cuddapah, had made surprise check at Stage No.13 and eventually found certain cash and ticket irregularities.
(b) The sum and substance of allegations attributed against petitioner was that he has indulged in collecting excess fare than the ticketed amount and thereby sought to misappropriate the Corporation's money. Based on the said incident, after collecting the statements of passengers who spoke against petitioner, the respondent Corporation has issued an order of termination dated 13.03.1997. Petitioner challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority and also reviewing authority, however, was unsuccessful vide orders dated 07.10.1999 and 30.03.2000 respectively.
(c) Questioning aforesaid termination as confirmed eventually, petitioner preferred claim under Section 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act before the Tribunal. The case put forth by petitioner before the Tribunal was that due to mistake that occurred while issuing the tickets excess amount was collected from the passengers and the same later has been repaid to the passengers in front of the squad members, therefore, he really did not have any intention of defrauding or misappropriating Corporation’s money.
(d) Further, the Corporation, without conducting any domestic enquiry, straight away dismissed the petitioner from service, which is contrary to the service regulations of Corporation, besides being in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent Corporation tried to sustain its action before the Tribunal by pleading that as petitioner was appointed as casual conductor and in terms of the appointment order, in particular, clause 4, since envisaged the Corporation to take action against petitioner without any enquiry, the services came to be terminated.
(e) Further, it was also pleaded that the statements of passengers and even the admission made by petitioner himself clearly established the factum of collection of excess money than ticketed, which necessitated the punishment of removal. Neither petitioner nor the respondent Corporation chose to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, to support their respective pleas.
(f) The Tribunal, based on the pleadings, has proceeded to determine the issue. On appreciation of the pleadings, the Tribunal has come to conclusion that the charge levelled against petitioner was supported by the statements of the passengers and even petitioner also admitted to the incident, though pleaded that the same occurred on account of mistake but not intentional. Nevertheless, Tribunal having found that there was no proper enquiry, preceding the impugned action of termination, has ultimately ruled that the termination was bad. Accordingly, petitioner was directed to be reinstated as casual conductor, subject to availability of vacancy. However, the claim towards continuity of service and back wages came to be rejected. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri K.Pandu Ranga Vittal Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Varadarajulu Chetty, learned counsel for petitioner on record and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contends that the Tribunal having found that the termination was bad and ordered for reinstatement of petitioner into service, as a natural corollary, ought to have directed the respondents to pay back wages besides ordering for continuity of service. In fact, the petitioner stated to have pleaded in the petition filed before Tribunal that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere and was suffering with severe financial hardship, despite making note of the said plea, the Tribunal chose not to grant back wages. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Limited v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)( 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674 = (2022) 9 SCC 586) and Division Bench judgment of High Court of Telangana in The Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Gollamandala Subba Raju and another(W.A. No.977 of 2017, dated 21.04.2022).
5. (a) Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Corporation on the other hand supported the order of Tribunal by contending that the very order of appointment issued in favour of petitioner since envisaged in clause 4 that his services can be terminated without any enquiry, petitioner cannot equate himself with the regular employees of Corporation to say that the procedure adopted in terminating his services was contrary to service regulations of Corporation, therefore, the termination of petitioner was rightly done.
(b) He further contended that petitioner was appointed only as a casual conductor, nevertheless he was already subjected to disciplinary action previously once, later came to be reinstated and yet again has committed the act of pilferage or misappropriation of Corporation money, which aspect has been not only spoken of by the passengers but also admitted by the very same petitioner, so nothing further remained for the Corporation to enquire into to take a decision on such act. Hence, the impugned order of termination was confirmed even by appellate authority as well as reviewing authority. Further, the Tribunal has taken a lenient view in ordering reinstatement of petitioner as casual conductor subject to availability of vacancy, consciously chose not to award back wages and continuity of service. Therefore, the order really cannot be found fault with. In support of the aforesaid argument, reliance has been placed on Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H.Amaresh((2006) 6 SCC 187).
6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions.
7. Petitioner though claimed to have been appointed as regular conductor, the record otherwise shows that he was merely appointed as casual conductor, even the order of Tribunal also proceeds on the basis that he was a casual conductor and the direction given to reinstate him back into service was also as a casual conductor. Nevertheless, it is an admitted case by either side that petitioner did work as a conductor with respondent Corporation. That there was a surprise check at Stage No.13 while bus was en route from Banaganapalle to Chennai. In the said check, it revealed that petitioner was having excess cash than the ticketed amount, meaning thereby, he had collected more amounts by issuing few tickets. The pleadings before the Tribunal also suggests that the passengers have spoken against petitioner and even petitioner also admitted the same, however, tried to explain the incident by stating that it occurred on account of mistake but not on any willful intention. Further, admittedly, except to aver in the affidavit on oath, there is no oral or documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, has come to conclusion that the termination was not proceeded by any enquiry, therefore, the same was vitiated and hence, has set aside the order of termination. This portion of the order has attained finality as Corporation chose not to assail the same before appropriate forum.
8. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has not granted the relief of continuity of service and awarded back wages. In order to consider the plea of petitioner for back wages, this Court is also required to see length of service that was put in by the petitioner, nature of misconduct and similar other factors. Though petitioner’s service came to be terminated on 13.03.1997, he chose to prefer claim before the Tribunal only in the year 2000. No doubt, petitioner has made a specific averment before the Tribunal that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, which was also recorded by the Tribunal in its order, still the Tribunal chose not to award back wages. The Tribunal has not given any specific reasons as to why the relief of continuity service and back wages were denied.
9. When once the Tribunal finds that the termination of service was illegal, it would order reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, which is a normal rule. In the present case, as could be seen from the record, petitioner though was appointed in the year 1992 as casual conductor, already he was once removed from service on account of unauthorized absence and later came to be reinstated before happening of the present incident, which eventually resulted in yet again terminating him from service. The nature of charge or allegation on which petitioner has now been terminated is pilferage/misappropriation of the Corporation’s money. Even if the quantum of money is subject matter of misappropriation, being minimal, yet it all depends on the confidence to be reposed on petitioner to continue him with the employment.
10. The Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings, has given a definitive finding that there was enough material against petitioner to hold that he was involved in pilferage/misappropriation. Having regard to the aforesaid conduct of petitioner, the normal rule of extending back wages besides continuity of service cannot be granted for mere asking. There is no dispute with respect to the proposition laid down in the judgments relied on by learned counsel for petitioner, however, given the peculiar facts and circumstances and also considering the gravity of the allegations which otherwise Tribunal found to be proved, as a matter of routine, the claim for back wages and continuity of service cannot be awarded. That apart, when petitioner came to be removed from service in the year 1997, he chose to prefer I.D. in the year 2000 and the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, has thought fit not to award back wages and order continuity of service. Normally, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that too in the nature of Certiorari jurisdiction would not reappreciate the evidence and also the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. This Court has also been appraised of the subsequent developments that led to the reinstatement of petitioner, as he got yet again involved in another incident, he came to be removed from service by order dated 07.06.2008, against which an appeal stated to have preferred. Petitioner no longer continues to be in service with the respondent Corporation.
11. On account of aforesaid reasons, this Court cannot grant the relief of ordering back wages besides continuity of service by substituting its views.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
