The Madras High Court Bench here has set aside an order passed by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) on January 17, 1998 dismissing from service a bus conductor accused of not issuing a ticket to a passenger despite receiving Rs.2.25 from the latter.
However, a Division Bench of Justices M. Jaichandren and R. Mahadevan refused to order payment of back wages to the conductor ever since he was dismissed 16 years ago and reversed an order passed by a single judge of the court last year awarding 30 per cent of back wages.
The TNSTC as well as the conductor K. Tamilmaran had approached the Division Bench challenging the single judge’s order.
While the former was aggrieved against setting aside of the dismissal order, the latter wanted the Bench to order payment of 100 per cent of back wages. Disposing of their writ appeals through a common order, the judges pointed out that the conductor had also been accused of not issuing ticket to passenger when he was travelling in a bus plying between Manapparai in Tiruchi district and Thogamalai in Karur district on September 13, 1997.
A Checking Inspector had also accused the conductor of being in possession of Rs.10.30 in excess of the tickets sold by him and abandoning the vehicle midway when the irregularities found out and attempts were made to issue a memo to him after obtaining statements from the passenger and the driver.
During the domestic enquiry, the conductor defended himself by stating that it was the usual practice of conductors to keep excess money in their bags to tender exact change to the passengers.
He also said that he abandoned the bus only to meet his superiors and explain the charges levelled against him.
Holding that a single judge had rightly set aside the dismissal order since the passenger had not been enquired in the domestic enquiry conducted against the conductor, the Division Bench said that it did not find any reason to interfere with the direction to reinstate him in service.
“In so far as awarding of 30 per cent of back wages to the petitioner is concerned, we have no hesitation to observe that the writ petitioner does not deserve it due to his conduct at the relevant point of time,” Mr. Justice Mahadevan observed while writing the judgement for the Bench.
