Md. Yousf S/O Late Mohd Ali v. Apsrtc, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 16489 of 2006 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.73 of 2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-II-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad and to quash the order dated 22.11.2005 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 Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondentCorporation. 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 05.02.2001, 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 23.07.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had unsuccessfully preferred an appeal and a review and, thereafter, filed I.D.No.73 of 2004 before the Labour Court. But the

Labour Court dismissed the I.D. vide order dated 22.11.2005. 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 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 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 8th November, 2018 cbs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Writ Petition No. 16489 of 2006 (disposed of) 8th November, 2018 cbs