1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of removal from service, as illegal, arbitrary and to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits including the backwages and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage driver in the respondent corporation in the year 2007 and his services were subsequently regularized with effect from 01.09.2010. It is submitted that while the petitioner was driving a bus as a conductor-cum-driver and the bus was travelling from Vijayawada to Hyderabad, there was a check by the checking officials and it was found that the petitioner has collected a sum of Rs.380/- instead of Rs.385/- from one passenger at the boarding point itself, but failed to issue the ticket. Therefore, the TTI’s collected the balance of Rs.5/- from the passenger and issued a ticket and also issued a charge memo to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and submitted that he has collected the correct fare and he was in the process of issuing the ticket when there was a check by the TTI’s. Therefore, an inquiry was conducted and on the basis of the inquiry report, holding that the charges are proved against the petitioner, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed and a revision and also mercy petition, thereafter were also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter challenged the removal order before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal also confirmed the order of dismissal and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that none of the authorities below have considered the contentions of the petitioner and have imposed the disproportionately excessive punishment of removal from service. It is further submitted that the order of the removal should be set aside with a direction to pay all consequential benefits. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the Circular issued by the respondents wherein it was provided that when it was a first time offence, the petitioner ought not to have been placed under suspension and ought not to have been removed from service. He placed reliance upon the instructions issued by the respondent corporation on Job Security for Employee for this proposition. It is further submitted that without issuing any training for ticket issuing machines, the petitioner has been directed to conduct and drive the bus and therefore, there was a small irregularity in issuing the ticket and for that offence he should not have been removed from service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
(1) K.B.Lingam Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC Now TSRTC 2023 SCC OnLine TS 1017;
(2) APSRTC now TSRTC Vs. G.T.Reddy 2022 SCC OnLine TS 2350;
(3) S.Durgaiah Vs. APSRTC, D.M.Sangareddy 2022 SCC OnLine TS 225;
(4) G.T.Reddy Vs. Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court 2022 SCC OnLine TS 890;
(5) E.Chandraiah Vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director and Others 2023 SCC OnLine TS 34.
5. The respondents, however, have filed a counter affidavit and submitted that during the enquiry it was proved that the petitioner has collected money, but not issued ticket during the course of check and therefore the order of removal from service was justified and has been confirmed both in the appeal as well as revision and also by the Industrial Tribunal. It is submitted that there was no discrepancy in conducting of the enquiry and therefore, this Court may not go into the said aspects at this stage. As regards the proportionately of the punishment, it is stated that the punishment prescribed for such offences was removal from service and the said punishment has correctly been imposed on the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that even as per the instructions of the TSRTC on Job Security for Employees where the buses are Deluxe, Super Luxury, Rajadhani A/C, Vajra A/C, Garuda Plus A/C and City A/C type services, irrespective of the ticket amount and number of ticketless passengers detected, based on the merits of the case, the conductor/TIM/OMS driver shall be placed under suspension followed by punishment of maximum up to removal from service. Even for City Ordinary, Sub-urban, Mofussil, Metro Express, Metro Deluxe, Pallevelugu, Mini-Pallevelugu, Semi-Express and Express services, if the ticket amount is more than twice the minimum fare, irrespective of number of ticketless passengers, the conductor/TIM driver shall be placed under suspension and punishment of maximum up to removal from service may be imposed. The petitioner was admittedly driving the bus from Vijayawada to Hyderabad. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no violation of the instructions in this case of petitioner, who was placed under suspension initially and subsequently on the basis of enquiry report, the petitioner has been removed from service.
7. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the findings of the Court were that the imposition of punishment of removal from service was highly disproportionate to the alleged offences of cash and ticket irregularities. In this case, this Court finds that the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs.380/- instead of Rs.385/- and had not issued the ticket at all to the passenger and therefore, it cannot be said to be a minor offence committed by the petitioner. The authorities have considered the plea of the petitioner, but have not thought at fit to modify the punishment. However, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service for a first time offence may not be warranted. But the relevant details are not on record. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents and the respondents may consider, if it was a first time offence and reconsider modifying the punishment from the punishment of removal from service.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
