APHC010659232018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31678/2018 Between: 1. U.YELLAPPA REDDY, S/O APPALA NARSAIAH, 52 YEARS, E.450214, CONDUCTOR (NOW WORKING AS ASST. DEPOT CLERK) D NO. B-13, R.T.C.COLONY, MADHURAVADA, VISHAKAPATANAM-530041. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. VISHAKAPATANAM DEPOT, VISHAKAPATANAM. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. VISHAKAPATANAM REGION, VISHAKAPATANAM 3. CHAIRMAN CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM-LABOUR COURT, VISHAKAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 2. S V RAMANA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Certiorari calling for the record relating to the impugned award dated 15.11.2017 made in I.D.No.69/2013 on the file of 3rd Respondent- Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and set aside the same as arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law 2 including Proceedings No. PA/I 9(24)/2010-RM VSP dated 05.03.2010 imposing the modified punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect beside treating the period of suspension as not on duty' for the purpose of Leave and increments, and pass consequently fix the pay of the petitioner by adding the deferred increments and treating the period of suspension as on duty with all consequential benefits.” 2. Heard Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is working as a Conductor in APSRTC. Learned counsel would further submit that, a charge has been framed against the Petitioner on the allegation that he has not issued ticket after collecting amount from one passenger in the bus. It is submitted that the Petitioner did not attend the enquiry and in the said enquiry, the charge against him was held as proved, without considering the statements of the co-passengers, who have stated that the Petitioner has not collected any amount from the lady passengers, but out of fear, the lady passengers stated to the Ticket Inspector that, though they have given money, the ticket was not issued. Learned counsel would further submit that the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service. Petitioner preferred appeal the same was rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection order, the Petitioner preferred revision, wherein, the punishment was modified to reduction of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Learned counsel would submit that, having been aggrieved by the harsh punishment 3 which was awarded in the revision, the Petitioner preferred I.D.No.69 of 2013 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and the learned trial Judge, without considering the material placed on record, simply dismissed the I.D by passing nil award. Learned counsel would further submit that the material which is available on record i.e., the statements of the co- passengers were not considered. The Revisional Authority by taking into consideration of the statements of the co-passengers and also the past record of the Petitioner, set aside the punishment of removal and modified to reduction of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which has impact on the future service of the Petitioner including the monetary loss for ever. Learned counsel would finally submit that, indulgence of this Court is required to set aside the Award in I.D.No.69 of 2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the Petitioner himself admitted that he has not issued ticket to the passenger. Considering his past service of 22 years and treating it as his first mistake, the punishment was rightly modified by the Revisional Authority. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, there are no grounds to interfere with the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the scope of this Court while sitting in Writ Jurisdiction to interfere in the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is so limited, except, in a case where the Tribunal ignored the relevant material placed on record. As 4 rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Revisional Authority observed that the statements of the co-passengers would show that the petitioner has not collected any amount from the passenger and has not issued the ticket. Such being the case, no mala fides can be attributed against the Petitioner. The Revisional Authority also observed the antecedents of the Petitioner that during his service of 22 years, there is no such incident and by treating it as his first mistake, the sentence of removal was modified to reduction of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 6. Needless to say that reduction of two increments with cumulative effect may have great impact on the monetary as well as the career of any public servant. The learned trial Judge of Labour Court failed to consider this aspect and passed the nil Award. When the Court came to the conclusion that the alleged act of the Petitioner is not coupled with a mala fide intention, that has to be considered as a mistake. In that view, awarding punishment of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect, is disproportionate to the alleged act of the Petitioner. Hence, the matter requires indulgence of this Court by modifying the punishment of two increments with cumulative effect to non-cumulative effect. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by modifying the punishment of two annual increments with cumulative effect to non-cumulative effect. "Non-cumulative effect" means that the penalty or punishment does not result in any future consequences beyond the specified period, and the 5 employee's pay or position is restored to what it would have been had the penalty not been imposed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:02.04.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.31678 of 2018 Dt.02.04.2025 Dinesh