G. Yadaiah v. The Apsrtc, Rep. By Its Managing Director,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.19105 OF 2008 ORDER:

1.

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with I.D.No.81 of 2006 on the file of the 3rd respondent-Labour Court and to quash the award dated 10.7.2007 passed therein by holding it as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct respondents Nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner into service and to pay the wages for the removal period forthwith along with all benefits. 2.

Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a conductor in the year 1986 and while he was discharging his duties on 21.7.2005, the checking officials of the respondentCorporation conducted check and alleged that he indulged in cash and ticket irregularities. The respondent-Corporation construing the said act as misconduct initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. After conducting enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 24.5.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal and the said

appeal was rejected on 27.9.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.D.No.81 of 2006 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. But the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that during entire service career of the petitioner, this is the lone allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner has not indulged in any misappropriation, but the Labour Court has mechanically dismissed the I.D. filed by the petitioner, without considering his case and without applying proportionality theory, and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the petitioner may be directed to be reinstated into service. 5.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contended that the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal for the proven misconduct in the enquiry and the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the I.D., and there are no merits in this writ petition.

6.

This Court having considered the submissions made by the parties and the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, is of the considered view that the punishment of removal imposed by the respondent-Corporation is very disproportionate and the Labour Court ought to have examined

the case of the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that this is the only incident in the entire career of the petitioner, and it ought to have interfered with the punishment of removal by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor. Since the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor. 7.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor, subject to medical fitness, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Dated: 7th September, 2018.

Nn.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.19105 OF 2008 7.9.2018 Nn