Holding

A bus conductor’s deliberate issuance of lower‑denomination tickets and retention of the fare is serious misconduct warranting dismissal; the High Court’s finding of an accidental slip and excess of gravity was erroneous.

Summary

The respondent, a bus conductor for APSRTC, was caught on 23 May 2000 issuing tickets of 0.50 paise instead of the correct fare of Rs 4 to sixteen illiterate female passengers, thereby pocketing an extra Rs 52. The management dismissed him, and the Labour Court upheld the dismissal as justified misconduct. The respondent challenged the dismissal under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the High Court’s Division Bench set aside the Labour Court’s order, characterising the incident as accidental and the punishment as excessive, directing a fresh appointment. The Supreme Court held that a single act of dishonesty by a conductor amounts to serious misconduct, that the High Court’s view of the incident as accidental was untenable, and that the dismissal was proper. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Labour Court’s decision. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the conduct of issuing lower‑denomination tickets and pocketing the fare constitutes serious misconduct justifying dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the High Court was correct in characterising the incident as accidental and the punishment as excessive.
Whether the order of removal can be set aside on the ground that the conductor had no prior record of misconduct.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 2A(2)

Subjects

misconductdismissalbus conductorfare fraudindustrial disputeLabour CourtHigh CourtSupreme Courtservice lawhonestybreach of trust

Judgment

1.

A TIIE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC ~

v.
B.SWAMY

APRIL 03, 2007

B [B.P. SINGH AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Service Law ,..
"""

Dismissal-Bus conductor-Found guilty of issuing tickets of lower
c · denomination than the actual fare to I 6 illiterate female passengers-
Dismissed from service-Labour Court holding misconduct as proved and
justifying removal-High Court holding the punishment as of excess gravity
and terming the incident as accidental and solitary in long career ofemployee,
directing his fresh appointment-Held: Mere fact that this was first occassion
D when the respondent was caught, is no ground to hold that it was accidental-
A Conductor of a bus enjoys faith reposed in him-He performs only duty of
issuing tickets to passengers and accounting for fare collectedfrom passengers ..,·r
to management-If he is dishonest in performance of his duties, he is guilty
of serious misconduct_ and gravity of misconduct cannot be minimized by the
fact that he was not earlier caught indulging in such dishonest conduct-
E Even one act of dishonesty amounting to breach offaith may invite serious
punishment-There was no justification for interfering with order of
management which had been upheld by the Labour Court-Judgment of
Division Bench of High Court set aside and order of single Judge of High
. Court restored-Labour Laws.
F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1766 of2007.
....,.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in, Writ Appeal No. 1484 of
2005.
G A.V. Rao, Sateesh Galla, Prabhakar Pamam, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,
R. Santhan krishnan, K. Radha Rani, PravP-en K. Pandey, P. Vijaya Kumar, C.
Tulasi Krishna and D. Mahesh Babu for the appearing parties.
~
The Order of the Court was delivered by
H 764
DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC v. B. SW AMY 765

ORDER A
Special Leave granted.

It is not in dispute that on 23rd May, 2000 the respondent was a
conductor performing his duties as Conductor in the bus belonging to
APSRTC. When the vehicle was checked, it was detected that 16 illiterate lady B
passengers had been issued tickets of 0.50 paise denomination instead of
Rs.4/-. The respondent is alleged to have collected an extra amount from each
of them which he pocketed. The checking staff had recorded the statement
of the passengers whereafter a charge memo was issued to the respondent.
After holding an inquiry, the management removed the respondent from C
service.

The respondent moved the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for setting aside the order of removal from
service passed by the Management. The Labour Court on a perusal of the
evidence ~m record concluded that 16 lady passengers had in fact been given D
tickets oflower denomination of 0.50 paise each instead of Rs.4/-. Had there
been no checking of the vehicle, the respondent would have pocketed
Rs.52/- without being detected. It did not find any substance in the submission
of the respondent., that since the bus was over loaded he had issued those
tickets under a mistake. Negativing the contention of the respondent, the
Labour Court held that the management having reposed confidence in the E
respondent as a conductor, since it found that he was not performing his
duties with honesty and sincerity, it was justified in removing him from
service. If such acts on the part of conductors are condoned, the ultimate
sufferer will be the APSRTC.

The Labour Court also took into account the fact that this could not F
be an accidental slip in issuing tickets of lower denomination because such
tickets were not issued to one or two passengers but to as many as 16
passengers. Considering all aspects of the matter, the Labour Court held that
the misconduct was proved and the management was justified in removing
the respondent from service. G
The order of the Labour Court was impu.gned by the respondent before
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 25369
of2004. The learned Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and upheld the findings
H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.
. ......
A of the Inquiry Officer. The learned Judge also.noticed that the respondent had
not examined himself to establish that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were
bad or perverse. He found no basis in the allegation that the proceeding
conducted by the Inquiry Officer was not fair. The Writ Petition was, therefore,
dismissed.

B The respondent thereafter preferred Writ Appeal No.l 484 of 2005. The
Division Bench which heard the appeal has virtually disposed it of in one
paragraph which reads as follows :-
"
"Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the
material available on record, it is seen that the appellant is a senior employee
c and the incident appears to be an accidental one in his entire service. Nothing
was brought on record by the respondents to show that at any time the
appellant was involved in such irregularity. Having regard to the same and
especially in view of the 16 passengers overloaded the bus, we feel that the
order of termination is quite unjustified and gave excess gravity to the
D offence.
~
~·
The Writ Appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent that the
award dated 19.4.2004 is set aside and in its place, we direct the second
respondent to give fresh appointment to the appellant."

E We fail to understand how the incident could be characterized as
accidental. The mere fact that this was the first occasion when the respondent
was caught, is no ground to hold that it was accidental. What weighed with
the learned Judges was the fact that the respondent had not been found to
be involved in such irregularities earlier. In our view that is not very material
in the facts of this case. A conductor of a bus enjoys the faith reposed in
F him. He accepts the responsibility of honestly collecting fares from the
passengers after issuing proper tickets and is obliged to account for the
money so collected. If conductors were to be dishonest in the performance
of their duties, it would cause serious pecuniary loss to the employer. The
High Court was therefore, not justified in observing that the management
G gave "excess gravity" to the offence. We are constrained to observe that the
High Court was not justified in characterizing the order of the management
as one induced py exaggeration of the gravity of the offence. The conductor
performs only the duty of issuing tickets to the passengers and accounting ~

for the fare collected from the passengers to the management If he is dishonest
in the performance of his duties, he is guilty of serious misconduct and the
H
DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC v. B. SW AMY 767
. gravity of the misconduct cannot be minimized by the fact that he was not A
earlier caught indulging in such dishonest conduct. There is no guarantee
that he had not acted dishonestly in the past as well which went undetected.
Even one act of dishonesty amounting to breach of faith may invite serious
punishment.

We are, therefore, satisfied that there was no justification for interfering B
with the order of the management which had been upheld by the Labour
Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of
the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in this appeal and restore the
order of learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition.

There shall be no order as to costs.
c
RP. Appeal allowed.