@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The petitioner is an employee of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the RTC, for brevity). While working as driver in Kodada Bus Depot, disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him for misconduct under Clauses (xviii), (xxi) and (xxvii) of Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (fhe Regulations for brevity). The Depot Manager, Vijayawada by order dated 5-12-1986 imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by four incremental stages for a period of four years and further ordered to treat the period of suspension as ''not on duty''. The appeal by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent was also dismissed by an order dated 8-6-1990. These orders are challenged in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 16-9-1985 for misconduct. By the same order, the following charges were framed against him.
(1) For having used vulgar and unparliamentary language against the Depot Manager. Jaggaiahpet on 10-9-1985 at about 20.00 hours, which is a serious, misconduct under Regulation 28 (xviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
(2) For having abused and used very vulgar language against the female family members of the DM/JPT at about 20.00 hours on 10-9-1985, which constitutes serious misconduct under Regulation 28(xviii) & (xxi) of APSRTC Employees . (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
(3) For having threatened the Depot Manager, JPT that you would cut him into two pieces as was done in the case of son of Sri R. Rama Rao. DVM, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
(4) For having attacked the residence of the Depot Manager JPT in a drunken condition on 10-9-1985 at about 20.00 hours which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
(5) For having absconded from Kodada point after spell of your duty on 10-9-1985 and misbehaved with the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet on 10-9-1985 at 20.00 hours which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxvii) and (xviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
3. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge-sheet inter alia submitting that on 10-9-1985 he" was booked for Pcdaveedu night out service, that all the staff booked for night services after performing link duty are to stay back till the next day morning to pick up the link duties, that on that date he came to Jaggaiahpet from Kodada as there was no accommodation of Kodada point, that at Jaggaiahpet he became unconscious and felt giddiness, that he did not abuse the Depot Manager wilfully and that might have abused in his unconscious state and that he may be excused for the lapse on his part. After receiving the explanation, the Chief Inspector (enquiries) in the office of the Divisional Manager, Vijayavvada, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
4. The Enquiry Officer examined the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet as witness on 16-12-1985. He suited that on 10-9-1995 at about 20.00 hours the petitioner raided his house in a drunken condition, used vulgar language against him, used unparliamentary language against his family members and threatened him by saying that he would cut the Depot Manager into two pieces as was done to the son of the Divisional Manager, R. Rama Rao, that he has rowdies in his hands and he would see the end of the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager also stated that the petitioner spat against him and that the petitioner who was to stay at Kodada point to pick up the schedule on [1-9-1985 came to Jaggaiahpet in a drunken state. The petitioner was present when the statement of the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet was recorded. The petitioner endorsed below the statement of the Depot Manager that the statement of the Depot Manager has been recorded correctly in his presence and that he does not wish to cross-examine the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet, The petitioner also gave a statement in a fit and proper condition to give a statement as follows:
"On 10-9-1985 I was booked for 6.30 hours Pedaveedu night out duty. Sri ARK Reddy E.83664 was my conductor. Vehicle No.ZAG 5340 was supplied to me at right time. After performing the scheduled trips I handed over the vehicle to my link driver at Kodada point. As per the duty chart I was supposed to stay at Kodada and receive the vehicle on the next day at the Kodada point itself to operate the schedule trips on 11-9-1985. As there was no accommodation we usually come to JPT depot without staying at Kodada. Likewise on 10-9-1985 1 came to JPT. On that day there was a quarrel in my house about family affairs. I abused my family members loudly coming out from my house. My house is located near the depot. DM''s residence is also located nearby. DM/ JPT observed my loud talk and lie thought that I was addressing him. While 1 was talking loudly to my family members 1 was in a fit of angry."
5. He also stated that lie does not wish to add anything further to the explanation to the charge-sheet, that he does not wish to produce any witness during the enquiry and that he does not wish to cross-examine any person.
6. It is also to be noticed that on 20-9-1985, the petitioner gave a statement before the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet to the effect that the petitioner did not wilfully abuse the Depot Manager and that if any intemperate language was used by him, it was when he was in unconscious state and, therefore, he expressed regrets and requested to be excused.
7. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 16-12-1985 holding the charges 1 to 5 as proved. The Depot Manager, Vijayawada issued a show-cause notice of reduction of pay on 18-3-1986. The petitioner again submitted explanation to the final show-cause notice. In the explanation to the final show-cause notice, for the first time, he submitted that the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet obtained an apology letter promising ''to lift the petitioner up''. However, he submitted that due to some family troubles he cried at his family members at his house, which is near to the house of the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet that was misunderstood as if the petitioner is abusing the Depot Manager. After considering the explanation and the entire material and the evidence available on record, the Depot Manager, imposed the punishment.
8. In his appeal petition, the petitioner contended that as he is an active member representing the grievance of other employees, the Depot Manager, developed personal prejudice and had been waiting for an opportunity, that on 10-9-1985 the condition of his house was bad and surcharged and, therefore, he hurled abusive words at his family, that he has not raided the house of the Depot Manager, that he has not absconded from duty, had he raided the house of Depot Manager, he would have been got arrested and that he tendered an apology letter as he was working under the control of the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet. He also alleged that the charges arc concocted and there is no evidence to prove the charges framed against him.
9. The appellate authority, by a well reasoned order rejected the appeal holding that the allegation that there is no accommodation at Kodada is not true, that the petitioner''s version of abusing his family members being overheard by the Depot Manager, whose house is nearer to the petitioner''s house, in not correct, and that there is ample evidence to show that the petitioner used vulgar and unparliamentary language against the Depot Manager and his family members. Further, the appellate authority also considered the apology letter and inferred that if there is no misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner, he would not have tendered an apology.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Venkat Rao, submitted that there is no evidence to prove the charges, that the statement of the petitioner confessing or admitting the misconduct cannot be the basis in the absence of cogent evidence to prove the charges, to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. It is also submitted that the charges even if it were to be true, cannot be termed as misconduct as per Regulation 28 of the Regulations. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1983 Lab. IC 1909 (SC) and ,9. Samson- v. APSRT 1987 (2) ALT 435 .
11. The learned standing Counsel for RTC submits that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the inference drawn by him cannot be said to be perverse and, therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court may not be inclined to re-evaluate the facts by reappreciation of the evidence and arrive at a different finding, especially when the petitioner gave a letter of apology to the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet.
12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent imposing the punishment of reduction of pay is valid and sustainable.
13. The point for consideration requires examination of two submissions. The first being whether the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct as per the Regulations. Secondly whether there are any circumstances to interfere with the findings recorded and accepted by the punishing authority as well as the appellate authority.
14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner took place at Jaggaiahpet, which is not the place of employment of the petitioner. At that time the petitioner was not on duty and, therefore, the misconduct alleged does not fall within clauses (xviii) and (xxi) of Regulation 28. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories case (supra) as well as the Judgment of this Court dealing with RTC Conduct Regulations in Sampson''s case (supra).
15. In Glaxo Laboratories case (supra), the queslion was whether the misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet against the workman taking the allegations to be true would squarely fall within clauses 10. 16 and 30 of Standing Order 22 of the Glaxo Industries Limited. Having regard to the language of the relevant clauses of Standing Order 22, the Supreme Court ruled that numerous acts of misconduct such as drunkenness, fighting, indecent or disorderly behaviour, use of abusive language etc., are Lolper se misconduct and that each one of them must have correlation to the time or place where it is committed. The acts of misconduct are punishable under relevant Standing Orders if committed within the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof. The appellant in that case placed reliance on ihe judgment of the Supreme Court in
16. In Samson''s case (supra), a Conductor was dismissed from service after regular departmental enquiry for misconduct under Regulation 28(viii), (xv), (xxxi) of the Regulations. It was alleged that the Conductor in a drunken stage went to the private house of the Divisional Manager, Kurnool and abused him. This Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the misconduct alleged does not fall within any of the clauses of Regulation 28. This Court held-
"The misconduct complained of must be some relationship to the employees duties or the work entrusted to him by the employer or his competency to perform the same. If the alleged act has nothing to do with the employees relationship with the employer or his duty or work as an employee it would not be a misconduct because it will have no effect on the terms and conditions of service of the empSoyee. The test is not whether the act or omission is committed in course of the discharge of his duties as employee but the test is whether it has a reasonable connection with the nature and conditions of service. The concept of misconduct of employee and employer relationship is based upon the nature and the relationship itself and implied and express conditions of service......."
17. In (his case, the allegation is that the petitioner who has posted at Kodada Bus Depot came to Jaggaiahpel at 20.00 hours on 10-9-1985, went to the house of the Depot Manager in a drunken state, threatened the Depot Manager with serious consequences and abused him and his faintly members in an unparliamentary language. Therefore, the charge-sheet was issued for misconduct under Regulation 28(xviii), (xxi) on one hand and (xxvii) on the other hand. These provisions are extracted below:
"28. General Provisions:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing Regulations, the following acts or omissions shall be treated as misconduct--
xxxxxx
(xviii) riotous or disorderly behaviour or intimidation in the premises of the Corporation or outside while on duty or any act subversive of discipline : this includes shouting of slogans criticising the Corporation or any of its servants and wearing ''protest badges''.
xxxxxx
(xxi) insolence, impertinence or unruly behaviour towards members of the public or any employee while on duty.
xxxxxx
(xxvii) habitual late attendance, irregular attendance, absence without leave and without reasonable cause and absence without permission and wasting time to loitering while on duty."
18. The Regulations were framed by the RTC under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 with the previous sanction of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. These prescribe the conduct of alt the persons employed by the Corporation. Regulation 3 to 27 prescribe that the employees should not do certain things like absenting without leave, acquisition of property, canvassing for job, giving press interviews, accepting gifts, accepting felicitations, lending and borrowing etc. Therefore. Regulation 28 begins saying that ''the acts and omissions mentioned in clauses (i) to (xxxii) shall be treated as misconduct without prejudice to (he generality of the Regulations 3 to 27. Regulation 29 says that breach of any of the provisions of al! the Regulations by an employee shall amount to misconduct rendering him liable for disciplinary action. Therefore, one thing is clear that llic acts or omissions which are treated as misconduct found in clauses (i) to (xxxii) of Regulation 28 are not exhaustive and they are only illustrative. Therefore, while interpreting the various clauses of Regulation 28, this has to be kept in mind and they should be interpreted broadly.
19. As seen from clause (xviii) as well as clause (XXL) any riotous or disorderly behaviour or intimation in the premises of the Corporation or outside while on duty or any act of subversive of discipline and insolence, impertinence or unruly behaviour towards the members of the public or any employee while on duty is a misconduct. Therefore, Regulation 28(xviii) treats unruly behaviour outside the employment while on duty also as misconduct. In this case, as admitted by the petitioner he was on duty (link duty) and he was supposed to stay at Kodada to take the schedule on 11-9-1985. But as per some alleged practice he went to Jaggaiahpet. There cannot be any doubt, therefore, that he was on duty when he allegedly went to the residence of the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet in a drunken state and abused him. Therefore, the two authorities relied on by ihc learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner. On this aspect, it should be held that the misconduct alleged has relation with the employment of the petitioner in RTC and, therefore, it squarely falls within Regulation 28(xviii) and (xxi) of the Regulations. Admittedly, the petitioner went to Jaggaiahpet without leave and he was absent without permission. Therefore, the other misconduct alleged falls within Regulation 28(xxvii).
20. It is well settled that judicial review in disciplinary matters is very limited. This Court shall not ordinarily interfere with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, (see
21. The nature of evidence and the degree of proof in departmental disciplinary proceedings cannot be examined on the touchstone of evidentiary principles as applied in criminal proceedings. If on a balancing of probabilities, there is a possibility to reasonably infer and arrive at a finding based on relevant evidence that is sufficient to hold the delinquent guilty. In this case, the allegation is that at 20.00 hours on 10-9-1985 the petitioner in a drunken state raided the house of the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet and abused the Depot Manager and his family members. The possible witnesses to such an incident would be the Depot Manager, the petitioner and the respective family members of the petitioner as well as the Depot Manager. The family members of the Depot Manager as well as the family members of the petitioner would be interested and, therefore, their evidence even if available is of no use. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager spoke about the incident and though the petitioner had ample opportunity he did not choose to cross-examine the Depot Manager. Therefore, the evidence given by the Depot Manager remains unimpeached. Further, in his statement on the same day i.e., 16-12-1985, before the enquiry officer, the petitioner admits that he used abusive language but explained that it is directed against his own family members and not the family members of the Depot Manager or the Depot Manager. He also stated that he does not wish to produce any witness and he does not wish to cross-examine any person in this regard. In an enquiry of this nature, the evidence before the enquiry officer given by the Depot Manager, which remained unimpeached, is sufficient unless there are strong reasons. The apology letter given by the petitioner, which was relied on by the appellate authority, also lends credence to my view that there was sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges.
22. The petitioner in his explanation to the final show cause notice came forward with another version that apology letter was obtained by the Depot Manager on the premise of letting him off. * It is only in the grounds of appeal that he came forward with another version that the Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet is biased against him as the petitioner is espousing the cause of other workmen. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case of ''no evidence'' is without any substance. The best evidence in a case like this is that of the person who was subjected to abuse and the Depot Manager categorically spoke about the incident and the petitioner did not choose to cross-examine him. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel is rejected.
23. The learned Counsel also submitted that the appellate authority relied on the apology letter given by the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, an employee cannot be held to be guilty placing reliance on an apology letter. He relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in UPSRTC v. Maheshkumar Mishra. After going through the judgment of the Supreme Court, I have carefully considered the submission. In the Supreme Court, the Conductor was found to have committed misconduct of not collecting proper fare and for that purpose the enquiry officer relied on the report of the Transport Inspector which is also signed by the respondent. As the bus was a city bus, the Supreme Court observed that the examination of passengers could have established beyond doubt whether they had boarded the bus at one stop or the other stop and whether the Conductor was justified in charging Rs.1.50/- from the passengers instead of Rs.1.80/-. The judgment of the Supreme Court, in my considered opinion, does not apply to the facts of the present case and hence the submission of the learned Counsel is liable to be rejected.
24. For all the above reasons, 1 do not find any infirmity in the decision making process leading to the imposition of punishment of reduction of pay by four incremental stages for a period of four years besides treating the period of suspension as ''not on duty''. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
