APSRTC Conductor's Termination Upheld; Leniency Towards Misappropriation Contrary To Public Interest: AP HC

Background

Ganasala Krishna was a conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). During a surprise check, he was caught collecting fares from passengers without issuing tickets (in violation of APSRTC Employees Conduct Rules). Consequently, a disciplinary inquiry resulted in his termination from service in 2005. Further, his appeals before both the appellate and reviewing authorities were dismissed. Thus, seeking reinstatement, Krishna approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur. However, the Tribunal too upheld Krishna's termination, citing the seriousness of his misconduct.

Aggrieved, Krishna filed a writ petition, contending that the inquiry was procedurally flawed and that the Tribunal failed to consider certain mitigating factors such as the alleged intoxication of passengers.

Arguments

Krishna argued that the Labour Court failed to properly evaluate his claim that passengers were intoxicated. He claimed that intoxication could also have affected their testimonies. He argued that the inquiry process did not consider certain factual aspects of the case. Further, he maintained that he had submitted an explanation for not issuing tickets, but the Officer held him guilty without even considering it.

The APSRTC argued that Krishna's misconduct was habitual and cited his prior instances of ticketing irregularities. It stressed that issuing tickets is a core responsibility of conductors, and any breach undermines public trust. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in U.P. State Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma [(2010) 6 SCC 555], which held that leniency in cases of misappropriation or corruption regardless of the amount involved, is contrary to public interest.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court explained that its review powers under Article 226 are limited to assessing procedural compliance and adherence to principles of natural justice. Citing State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723] and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610], the court noted it could not reappreciate evidence or substitute its findings unless there were infractions of principles of natural justice or the conclusion reached is arbitrary and perverse.

The court then addressed Krishna's claim regarding intoxicated passengers. It observed that he had presented no substantive evidence to support this contention. It held that such unsubstantiated claims could not override the findings of the disciplinary inquiry, which were based on concrete evidence.

Further, the court emphasized that Krishna's act of collecting fares without issuing tickets constituted gross misconduct. Referring to U.P. State Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma, the court reiterated that leniency in cases of misappropriation or corruption, even involving small amounts, is inappropriate and undermines public trust.

Lastly, the court considered Krishna's prior disciplinary record, which reflected multiple censures and disciplinary infractions. It concluded that the penalty of termination was therefore appropriate. Thus, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, and upheld the Labour Court's findings.

Decided on: 20-12-2024

Case No.: W.P. No. 28120/2008 | Ganasala Krishna v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur & Others

Counsel for the Petitioner: P.N. Murthy

Counsel for the Respondents: Tarlada Vinod Kumar (APSRTC)

Click Here To Read/Download The Order