HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7927 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, S. Vijaya Kumar, challenging the award in I.D. No.148 of 1996 dated 19-09-2000 passed by the learned chairman, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Godavarikhani. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Conductor in respondent No.1 Corporation, APSRTC, and on 23-02- 1992 while he was conducting the bus bearing No.AEZ – 6471 on the route of Maddikunta, a check was exercised at Stage No.3/4 by the officials of the Corporation and allegedly found certain serious cash and ticket irregularities and issued a charge memo and based on the charge memo, charge sheet dated 29-02-1992 was issued with the following charges: “1) For having violated the Rule ‘Issue and Start’ which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2) For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to a batch of fourteen (14) passengers who boarded the bus at Algunoor bound for Gangipally ex.stages 2 to 5 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(ix) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3) For having closed the tray number of Rs.2.25 ps deno. Tickets in advance as ‘082’ instead of ‘068’ in the S.R. against stage No.3 (14.35/40) hrs. trip, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” For the above charges, petitioner submitted his explanation to the Corporation and an enquiry was conducted. According to the petitioner, enquiry conducted by the Corporation was totally unilateral. He repeatedly contended that he was cheated by the passengers and there were 85 passengers in the bus at the time of check and the Corporation officials (T.T.Is.) forced him to make corrections in the charge memo to suit to their case. He was removed from service by order dated 28-05-1992 and against that order, he preferred an appeal and the same was rejected. Then, petitioner filed an I.D. before the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and the Labour Court dismissed the same. According to the petitioner, dismissal of I.D. is bad as the check was conducted while there were 85 passengers in the bus and that the Labour Court did not exercise its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and explanations of the petitioner were not properly appreciated. 3. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the award impugned suffers from any illegality or infirmity ? 4. As per the award impugned, petitioner failed to collect fair and issue tickets to a batch of 14 passengers. 5. There is no material on record to show that petitioner has issued tickets to that batch of 14 passengers. The plea of the petitioner is vague as he says that there were 85 passengers in the bus, but he did not state that on account of such heavy rush in the bus, he was prevented from issuing tickets to that batch of passengers. The enquiry conducted by the Corporation proved the charges against the petitioner. In the circumstances, there are absolutely no merits in the petition to hold that petitioner was not guilty. Thus, the award impugned does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 6. Considering the circumstances particularly the fact that there is no material on record to show that petitioner was involved in any kind of fraud earlier, instead of completely removing him from service, by giving a chance, he can be given fresh appointment. Thus, the award impugned is modified directing the Corporation to appoint the petitioner as Conductor afresh within one month from the date of service of this order on the Corporation. The petitioner is not entitled to any back wages or continuity of service. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 2, 2010. NOTE: Dispatch the order by tomorrow. (B/O) PV