*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.12443 of 2020

Between:

#Gunji Dhanamma, ...PETITIONER

AND

$Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

APSRTC and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 07.03.2025

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

2

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION No.12443 of 2020

% 07.03.2025

# Between:

#Gunji Dhanamma ...PETITIONER

AND

$ Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

APSRTC and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Pitchaiah

! Counsel for Respondents: Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred: 1. 1985 LAB I.C. 729

2. 1983 LAB I.C. 1909

3. AIR 1963 SC 1723

4. (2015) 2 SCC 610

3

APHC010192792020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3310]

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 12443/2020

Between:

Gunji Dhanamma ...PETITIONER

AND

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Apsrtc and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M PITCHAIAH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC)

The Court made the following Order:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking the following relief:

“….. to issue a writ order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the Order, dt.26.04.2012 of the 3

rd

respondent as

confirmed in 2

nd

respondent order, dt.15.07.2012 imposing

the punishment of postponement of 2 Annual Grade

Increments with cumulative effect besides treating the

period from the date of removal till the date of

reinstatement as Not on Duty, as arbitrary, violative of

4

Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and

APSRTC Employees CCA Regulations , 1967 to the extent

the impugned order is against me by modifying the same

and consequently direct the respondents to pay back

salary, incremental arrears with interest @ 12% p.a. and

grant costs of the proceedings….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as

Conductor in APSRTC on 01.01.2010 and worked at the Addanki Depot for

some time. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Chirala Depot, where

she worked up to 20.10.2010, on which date she was placed under

suspension. The 4

th

respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 20.10.2010

alleging that the petitioner failed to observe the rule issue correct tickets to the

passengers and close the S.R. with correct denomination tickets and having

collected an amount of Rs.70/- from two passengers, who boarded the bus at

Narsaraopet and bound for Chirala and issued less tickets worth of Rs.62/-

instead of Rs.70/- and closed all denomination tickets, which in the opinion of

the 4

th

respondent, constituted misconduct under Regulation-28, Clauses

(xxxi) and (xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The

petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charged levelled against

her. Without considering the same, a domestic enquiry was conducted and the

enquiry officer gave his findings. Based on the findings, the 4

th

respondent

issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 03.11.2011, asking the petitioner to show

cause as to why she should not be removed from service as the charges

levelled against her are proved. The petitioner submitted his explanation

5

denying the charges levelled against him. Without considering the same, the

4

th

respondent issued proceedings vide proceedings No.O2/95(53)/2010,

dated 14.11.2011, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 3

rd

respondent on 21.12.2011.

The 3

rd

respondent issued proceedings vide No.St.19(92)/2012-Dy.CTM,

dated 26.04.2012 setting aside the order of removal and reinstating the

petitioner into service, but, however, postponed two increments on permanent

basis and treating the interregnum period as ‘Not on Duty’. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner filed Review Petition before the 2

nd

respondent on

28.11.2016 and the same was rejected mechanically vide proceedings

No.PA/675(99)/2016, dated 15.07.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an

application before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner of

Labour, Ongole through APSRTC Employees Union and the same was

returned by the said authority on 13.02.2020, stating that the petitioner’s

application filed is not covered under the provisions of I.D.Act, 1947.

Aggrieved by the order of the 3

rd

respondent dated 26.04.2012, the present

writ petition has been filed.

3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations

made in the writ petition and stated that, on 08.10.2010, the checking officials

of Regional Enforcement Squad, APSRTC, Guntur have exercised a check on

Bus No.AP27X7049 of Chirala Depot at Parchur, it was detected that the

6

petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.70/- from a batch of two passengers

who boarded at Narasaraopet and bound for Chirala and issued tickets worth

Rs.62/- only @ Rs.31/- each. The petitioner has closed the SR of all

denominations without issuing correct denomination of tickets to the above

said passengers even after collecting the requisite fare and hence the

checking officials made the petitioner to issue tickets worth Rs.8/- each worth

Rs.4/- denomination from the hand tray of the petitioner. It is further stated

that the checking officials have collected spot explanation of the petitioner and

spot statement of the concerned passengers. The petitioner in her spot

explanation accepted as having collected the requisite fare of Rs.70/- @

Rs.35/- each from a batch of two passengers for their journey from

Narasaraopeta to Chirala and issued tickets worth of Rs.62/- @ Rs.31/- each.

The concerned passengers have given their spot statement that they gave

Rs.70/- to the petitioner towards their ticket fare and the TTIs detected at the

time of check only tickets worth Rs.62/- were issued by the Conductor. Hence,

a charge Memo dated 08.10.2010 was issued to the petitioner. Based on the

charge sheet, as the irregularities committed by the petitioner is serious in

nature, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from

20.10.2010 vide order No.O2/95(33)/2010-CRL, dated 20.10.2020 since prima

facie is established. After a decade, the petitioner has filed this writ petition,

which is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7

4. Heard Mr.M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the

contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the alleged misconduct

attributed against the petitioner is not a codified misconduct under any of the

Regulations of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1963. He further

submits that once it is shown that it is not an enumerated misconduct, it is well

settled law that the employer has no power to initiate disciplinary action

against an employer for an un-enumerated misconduct in his Service Rules or

Regulations or Standing orders or Bye-Laws, as the case may be of the

employer. As such, the whole disciplinary action taken by the respondents

against the petitioner is without any authority of law. He further submits that

the 3

rd

respondent did not supply the copies of petitioner’s spot explanation,

spot statements of passengers, copy of S.R. and 43R, TTI Special Reports

and other material documents which formed the basis for initiating disciplinary

action against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer did not give any reason as to

why he agreed with the version of Checking Official and did not agree with the

petitioner. He further submits that the respondents 2 and 3 ought to have seen

that when the petitioner was issuing tickets on 08.10.2010, a woman CAT

Card holder picked-up an argument with the petitioner and when this was

going on, the passengers in question intervened and asked the petitioner to

8

give those two tickets and the petitioner while thinking that they were also

CAT Card holders, issued ticket worth of Rs.31/- each and remaining change

was to be given to them at the time of alighting and as such, there was no

misconduct in the whole transaction. He further submits that the punishment is

shockingly disproportionate the charges levelled against the petitioner having

regard to the fact that the petitioner having 25 years of remaining service and

loss of two increments would mean thousands of rupees will be lost in

remaining years of service. He further submits that the respondents 2 and 3

have no power to impose punishment for a single set of charge.

6. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in

Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and

another

1

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“4. The High Court while dismissing the petition held that even if A

the allegation of misconduct does not constitute misconduct amongst those

enumerated in the relevant service regulations yet the employer can attribute

what would otherwise per se be a misconduct though not enumerated and

punish him for the same. This proposition appears to us to be startling

because even though either under the Certified Standing Orders or service

regulations, it is necessary for the employer to prescribe what would be the

misconduct so that the workman/employee knows the pitfall he should guard

against. If after undergoing the elaborate exercise of enumerating

misconduct, it is left to the unbridled discretion of the employer to dub any

conduct as misconduct, the workman will be on tenterhooks and he will be

punished by ex post facto determination by the employer. It is a well- settled

canon of penal jurisprudence-removal or dismissal from service on account

of the misconduct constitutes penalty in law-that the workmen sought to be

charged for misconduct must have adequate advance notice of what section

or what conduct would constitute misconduct. The legal proposition as stated

by the High Court would have necessitated in depth examination, but for a

1

1985 LAB I.C. 729

9

recent decision of this Court in Glaxo Laboratories vs. The Presiding Officer,

Labour Court Meerut & Ors.(1) in which this Court specifically repelled an

identical contention advanced by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel who

appeared for the employer in that case observing as under:

“Relying on these observations, Mr. Shanti Bhushan urged that

this Court has in terms held that there can be some other

misconduct not enumerated in the standing order and for which

the employer may take appropriate action. This observation

cannot be viewed divorced from the facts of the case. What

started in the face of the court in that case was that the employer

had raised a technical objection ignoring the past history of

litigation between the parties that application under Sec. 33A was

not maintain able. It is in this context that this Court observed that

the previous action might have been the outcome of some

misconduct not enumerated in the standing order. But the

extracted observation cannot be elevated to a proposition of law

that some misconduct neither defined nor enumerated and which

may be believed by the employer to be misconduct ex post facto

would expose the workman to a penalty. The law will have to

move two centuries back ward to accept such a construction. But

it is not necessary to go so far because in Salem Erode Electricity

Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co.

Ltd. Employees Union, this Court in terms held that the object

underlying the Act was to introduce uniformity of terms and

conditions of employment in respect of workmen belonging to the

same category and discharging the same or similar work under

an industrial establishment, and that these terms and conditions

of industrial employment should be well-established and should

be known to employees before they accept the employment. If

such is the object, no vague undefined notion about any act, may

be innocuous, which from the employer's point of view may be

misconduct but not provided for in the standing order for which a

penalty can be imposed, cannot be incorporated in the standing

orders. From certainty of conditions of employment, we would

have to return to the days of hire and fire which reverse

movement is hardly justified. In this connection. we may also

refer to Western India Match Company Ltd v.Workmen in which

this Court held that any condition of service if inconsistent with

certified standing orders, the same could not prevail and the

certified standing orders would have precedence over all such

agreements. There is really one interesting observation in this

which deserves noticing Says the Court:

“In the sunny days of the market economy theory people

sincerely believed that the economy law of demand and supply in

the labour market would settle a mutually beneficial bargain

between the employer and the workman Such a bargain, they

took it for granted, would secure fair terms and conditions of

employment to the workman. This law they venerated as natural

law. They had an abiding faith in the verity of this law. But the

experience of the working of this law over a long period has belief

their faith."

10

Lastly we may refer to Workmen of Lakheri Cement Works Ltd. Associated

Cement Companies Ltd This Court repelled the contention that the Act must

prescribe the minimum which has to be prescribed in an industrial

establishment, but it does not exclude the extension other wise. Relying

upon the earlier decision of this Court in Rohak Hissar District Electricity

Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, the Court held that

everything which is required to be prescribed with precision and no argument

can be entertained that something not prescribed can yet be taken into

account as varying what is prescribed. In short it cannot be left to the

vagaries of management to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or

commission nowhere found to be enumerated in the relevant standing order

is none-the-less a misconduct not strictly falling within the enumerated

misconduct in the relevant standing order but yet a misconduct for the

purpose of imposing a penalty. Accordingly, the contention of Mr.Shanti

Bhusan that some other act of misconduct which would per se be an act of

misconduct though not enumerated in S.O. 22 can be punished under S.O.

23 must be rejected. It is thus well-settled that unless either in the Certified

Standing Order or in the service regulations an act or omission is prescribed

as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as

misconduct and punish the workman even though the alleged misconduct

would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance

upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in M/s.Glaxo

Laboratories Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and

others

2

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“23(a)........... The statutory obligation is to prescribe with precision in the

standing order all those acts of omission or commission which would constitute

misconduct. In the fact of the statutory provision it would be difficult to entertain

the submission that some other act or omission which may be misconduct though

not provided for in the standing order would be punishable understanding order.

.......In short it cannot be left to the vagaries of management to say ex post

facto that some acts of omission or commission nowhere found to be enumerated

in the relevant standing order is nonetheless a misconduct not strictly falling within

the enumerated misconduct in the relevant standing order but yet a misconduct for

the purpose of imposing a penalty. Accordingly, the contention of Mr. Shanti

Bushan that some other act of misconduct which would per se be an act of

misconduct though not enumerated in S.O. 22 can be punished under S.O. 23 must

be rejected.”

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the

above judgments, prays to pass appropriate orders.

2

1983 LAB I.C. 1909

11

8. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel while reiterating the

contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, it is the bounden

responsibility of the petitioner being the service conductor to issue appropriate

tickets to the passenger duly collecting the requisite fare and tallying the ticket

issues with the SR of service. The petitioner did not produced any valid record

or evidence to substantiate to the petitioner’s version as stated in the enquiry

and it is nothing but an afterthought to cover the petitioner’s lapse by taking

shelter on a false plea by fabricating concoct able stories. The petitioner had

failed to endorse on tickets the change due of Rs.8/- to the two passengers

which shows that the petitioner had no intention to give the change due. Thus,

the charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved. In the enquiry,

the petitioner was provided with all opportunities but the petitioner failed to put

forth any valid reasons in support of petitioner’s statement. He further submits

that there are no justifiable grounds in the writ petition and prays to dismiss

the writ petition.

9. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State of A.P. vs. S.Sree Rama

Rao

3

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with powers of the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of departmental

enquiries and held as follows:

3

AIR 1963 SC 1723

12

“21. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Art.226

of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities

holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: iris concerned to

determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that

behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and

whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some

evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has

accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that

the delinquent Officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High

Court in a petition for a writ under Art.226 to review the evidence and to

arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may

undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the

proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of

natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of

enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a

fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the

merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant

considerations or ;where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly

arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived

at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities

are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if

there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the

adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be

permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ

under Art.226 of the Constitution.”

10. Learned Standing Counsel has further placed reliance upon the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India vs.

P.Gunasekaran

4

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex after enunciating the relevant

legal position, codified the powers of the Hon’ble High Courts under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India pertaining to Labour Court awards and

held as follows:

“13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court

shall not:

i. reappreciate the evidence;

ii. interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has

been conducted in accordance with law;

iii. go into the adequacy of the evidence;

iv. go into the reliability of the evidence;

v. interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be

based.

4

(2015) 2 SCC 610

13

vi. correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

vii. go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its

conscience.”

Therefore, learned Standing Counsel while relying upon the above

judgments, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

11. Perused the record.

12. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that,

the 3

rd

respondent has passed the impugned order dated 26.04.2012 after

following the due procedure in accordance with law and that there has been

no violation of principles of natural justice or any other statutory provision in

vogue. In fact, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend herself. It is

the responsibility of the petitioner to collect the correct fare from the

passengers, issue the ticket and remit the same to the respondent corporation

credit. But in the present case, the petitioner failed in discharging her duties.

Not issuing correct fare of ticket, after collecting the amount from the petitioner

constitutes serious misconduct and the petitioner was found guilty of

breaching the trust of the respondent corporation.

13. It is relevant to mention that, the mandatory rules stipulate that,

the petitioner should complete the issuance of tickets correctly at the boarding

point itself, then move the bus for further journey and close the S.R. before the

arrival of next fare stage. However, the petitioner has closed the S.R. of all

denominations without issuing correct denomination of tickets to the

14

passengers even after collecting the requisite fee. Thus, the petitioner has

violated the rules of the respondent corporation.

14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on

considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing

the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, the action of the

petitioner in not issuing correct denomination of tickets even after collecting

the requisite fare is not proper on the part of the petitioner. Further, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the Labour Court Awards more

particularly, regarding the irregularities committed by the conductor in not

issuing the tickets even after receiving the amount, has taken a serious note

and held that showing sympathy in the cases of corruption/misappropriation is

uncalled and opposed to public interest, regardless of the amount of money

involved.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court found no merit in

the instant writ petition and devoid of merit and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

15

17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________________

Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date : 07-03-2025

BMS