HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15537 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the Award made in I.D. No.13 of 2000, dated 31.10.2005 whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages was dismissed. The petitioner is a workman. Respondent No.2 is the management of A.P.S.R.T.C. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1983. While things stood thus, on 12.1.1999, when the petitioner was conducting bus on the route from Hyderabad to Kanigiri, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were noticed and he was issued with charge sheet enumerating the following charges. “i) For having failed to account the tickets of Rs.72 (E.2) in your SR at stage No.8 to stage No.5, but the actual fare of the journey is Rs.71, but you have collected Rs.72 each from passengers who boarded the bus at Imliban and bound for Macherla Ex. Stages 8 to 5, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employee (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. ii) For having failed to account the tickets of Rs.60 in your SR at stage No.8 to 6, but the actual fare of the journey is Rs.58/-, but you have collected Rs.60 to a passenger who boarded the bus at Imlibun bus station and bound for Hill Colony, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. iii) For having reissued Rs.60/- den., at Podili stage in down journey which was already issued at Podili Stage No. 2 in up journey, you have altered the closing No.123 as 128 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. iv) For having altered the No. of passengers 48 as 51 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. v) For having altered the closing No. 661337 as 327 in your SR in respect of Rs.70/- deno. at Markapuram stage, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, since the same was not satisfactory, the respondent management conducted a detailed enquiry and after following all the formalities, the petitioner was removed from service on 7.6.1999. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed his appeal as well as further review. However, both were dismissed. The petitioner having no other option, raised a dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No.13 of 2000. It is the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the charges framed against him are trivial in nature and absolutely there was no evidence to support the same for holding him guilty of the charges. However, the respondent-Management whimsically held the petitioner guilty of the charges and removed him from service. The appellate as well as the reviewing authorities followed the suit. Assuming that there is misconduct on the part of the petitioner, such mis-conduct does not warrant removal of the petitioner from service. The respondent-management filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that the charges are very grave in nature and the petitioner re-issued the tickets and defrauded the revenues of the respondent-Corporation. In a case of re-issue, the matter has to be viewed very seriously and in this case the same thing happened. Therefore, it could not have imposed lesser punishment than that of removal from service. However, the Labour Court having found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature, declined to interfere with the order of removal passed by the respondent-management and as such dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 and the mis-conduct arose on 12.1.1999 and he was removed from service on 7.6.1999. Thus the petitioner had a clear service of more than 16 years before the penalty of removal was imposed against him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-management states that the petitioner’s increment was deferred for four times and he was removed twice. Since the present conduct itself is enough for the purpose of removal from service, no interference can be made by the Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was not imposed with any major penalty of removal prior to 7.6.1999. In the service of a Conductor, major punishments are not unusual. But that itself does not mean that the present mis-conduct is trivial in nature and the punishment of removal from service cannot be justified. But the only aspect needs to be looked into is that the petitioner has put in 16 years of unblemished service. Since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation as of now, the award passed by the Labour Court imposing the punishment of removal from service is modified to that of compulsory retirement with effect from 7.6.1999. The 2nd respondent is directed to calculate all the benefits for which the petitioner is entitled to in lieu of compulsory retirement and pay the same within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 15th February, 2011 pnb