Kodi Venkata Satyanarayana, E-351686, W.G. Dist. v. The Apsrtc, Rep. By Its M.D. And 3 Others

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.13023 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.64 of 2005 on the file of the 4th respondent-Labout Court, and to quash the award dated 5.2.2008 passed therein, by holding it as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct respondents Nos.1 to 3 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 the learned Standing Counsel for the respondentCorporation. 3.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as conductor in the year 1987 and while he was discharging his duties on 30.7.2004, 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 on 3.1.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal and the said appeal was rejected on

1.3.2005. Hence, the petitioner preferred I.D.No.64 of 2005 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 respondentCorporation 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 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 and 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, 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:28th September, 2018.

Nn.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.13023 OF 2008 28/09/2018 Nn.