Elagandula Anjaiah v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Jagtial Depot,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 2530 of 2004 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.106 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, and to quash the order dated 10.10.2000 passed therein, by holding it as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other benefits including full back wages. 2.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

3.

It has been contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as Conductor in the corporation. While so, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 28.11.1995 on the allegations that he misbehaved with his co-employee, consumed alcohol while on duty, and prevented the service driver from operating the bus. The respondent-Corporation, after initiating disciplinary proceedings and after conducting a regular enquiry, imposed punishment of removal from service on him on 21.05.1996. Aggrieved by the same, he had filed I.D.No.106 of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. But, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. vide orders dated 10.10.2000. 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 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 order 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, back wages and other attendant benefits. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 19th December, 2018 cbs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Writ Petition No. 2530 of 2004 (disposed of) 19th December, 2018 cbs