THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.10922 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing the order of removal dated 8.5.1998 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Traffic Apprentice in the year 1989 in the Respondent Corporation and was attached to third respondent region. He was absorbed as Ticket Inspector Gr.II in the year 1991 and after completion of all the formalities and successful training, he was posted at B.Kothakota. The services of Conductors, Drivers, Assistant Depot Clerks, Depot Clerks and Ticket Inspectors Grade-III Officers were under the control and supervision of petitioner. The nature of duties of the petitioner are operation of buses, preparing duties to Conductors and Drivers, conducting enquiries, attending accidents and local mandal meetings etc. The prescribed procedure was that the Conductor who collects revenue by selling tickets will handover to Assistant Depot Clerk concerned, who in turn handover the same to Depot Clerk duly tallying the sale of tickets and the Depot Clerk will deposit the same in the Bank. The Depot Clerk will send connected accounts to Accounts Section. Therefore, petitioner is nothing to do with the financial matters of the Corporation. While that being so, the Secretary, National Mazdoor Union lodged a complaint against the third respondent and third respondent directed the fourth respondent to enquire into the matter and in pursuance of the same, an enquiry officer was appointed and after conducting preliminary enquiry against the petitioner, the enquiry officer held the petitioner is responsible for deletion of ticket block No.176/901699 in the computer, but not for the loss of ticket blocks in tray No.908. Based on the said allegations, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges. On the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority passed impugned order removing the petitioner from service. The appeal filed against the said order was also rejected. Since the petitioner is not a workman under the provisions of I.D. Act, he has filed the writ petition directly. The learned counsel for petitioner states that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the petitioner was not given full and fair opportunity to participate in the proceedings and the charges are very vague in nature and absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner is guilty of charges. Assuming that the charges are proved, which are trivial in nature, the punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation supported the order passed by the disciplinary authority and submitted that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct and the same was proved. Therefore, the respondents have imposed punishment of removal from service, which is just and proper. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The sum and substance of the charge made against the petitioner is that he has deleted ticket blocks of various denominations from the computer of Tray No.908. It is not the case of the Respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has sold the tickets or handed over the same to the Conductors. Though a faint effort is made by the respondents that these tickets were allotted to some other Conductor and the same were already sold, nothing has been come on record either way. Further, it is an admitted fact that no financial loss was caused to the Corporation in view of misconduct committed by the petitioner. Further, this was a first misconduct on the part of the petitioner and he was aged 35 years at the time of issuance of charge sheet. In the peculiar circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents could not have imposed the petitioner with punishment of removal from service, even if the charges are proved, since they are not grave in nature. The disciplinary authority should have imposed a lesser punishment than the punishment of removal from service. Generally speaking, in a case of this nature, the matter needs to be remanded to the disciplinary authority for taking appropriate decision as to sufficiency of punishment, but since it is more than 10 years petitioner is out of employment, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the litigation here itself by modifying the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any attendant benefits and without any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 28.7.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.10922 of 2000 28.7.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.10922 of 2000 Date: 28th July, 2010 Between: P.Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner And The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents