Varrier.Veetil.Shaji v. Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C.,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 17123 of 2002 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with I.D.No.108 of 2000 on the file of the 5th respondent-Labour Court and to quash the award dated 20.03.2002 passed therein, by holding it as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

2.

Heard Sri K.K. Chakravarthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 3.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as conductor in the year 1991 and while he was discharging his duties on 25.10.1999, the checking officials of the respondent-Corporation 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, and after conducting enquiry, imposed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner on 03.04.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had unsuccessfully preferred an appeal and, thereafter, filed I.D.No.108 of 2000 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 submitted that except the incident in question, there are no such other incidents in the entire service career of the petitioner and that the punishment of removal is very disproportionate and that the Labour Court ought to have applied proportionality theory and interfered with the punishment of removal, but the Labour Court has erroneously dismissed the I.D. 5.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contended that the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal for the proven misconduct and the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the I.D., and therefore, the award impugned does not warrant any interference.

6.

This Court having considered the submissions made by the parties and the gravity 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 and interfered with the punishment of removal by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the respondentCorporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor. Since the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondentCorporation 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 subject to medical fitness, as a fresh conductor, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 28th September, 2018 cbs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Writ Petition No. 17123 of 2002 (disposed of) 28th September, 2018 cbs