THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 1999 DATE: 21-1-2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Zaheerabad …… Petitioner And 1. Sri P.Balakishan and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 1999 ORDER: Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.91 of 1996 dated 14.3.1997, the present writ petition is filed. The 1st respondent was issued charge memo with the following charge: “For not having accounted the issue of ticket No.075/052590 to 075/052599 (E.10) of Rs.8/- denomination and also punched the above tickets on Stage No.1 as boarding point instead of stage No.5 and also you have punched alighting stage No.5 instead of stage No.1 and also closed all denominations up to Stage No.1. But you have not taken in account the above ten tickets in the Sr.No.A2/3606664 of Zahirabad Depot dt.12.3.95 which is mis-conduct under regularization 28(xxxii) and 28(x) of APSRTC Conduct Regulations 1963” Enquiry was held and on the charge being held established, the 1st respondent was removed from service. The appeal filed thereafter was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. The Labour Court upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry by order dated 30.12.1996. The Labour Court held that Ex.W.14, findings of the enquiry officer and Ex.M.17 proceedings clearly showed that the witness examined on behalf of the management had testified in proof of the charge against the 1st respondent . As he did not choose to challenge the same, it was made out that the petitioner had committed the said irregularity and his explanation was not accepted by the enquiry officer or by the petitioner. The Labour Court, however, modified the punishment on the ground that the sum involved is paltry and directed the 1st respondent to be reinstated into service with all attendant benefits, but without any back wages. Smt. B.G.Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the intention of the 1st respondent in punching the ticket as stage No.1 instead of Stage No.5 and not entering the same in the S.R. which was closed up to Stage No.1 was only with an intention of reusing the tickets later and denial of back wages as a measure of punishment would not suffice. I am unable to agree. There is no charge of the petitioner having deliberately punched the ticket as Stage No.1 instead of Stage No.5 with intention to misuse it later. It is the case of the Corporation that it should have been punched at Stage No.5. If it had been so punched at Stage No.5, then the 1st respondent would not be said to be guilty of misconduct, since it is not even the case of the respondent that the S.R. up to the stage No.5 was required to be closed. Since the boarding point was stage No.5 and not Stage No.1, closing of the S.R. up to the stage No.1 is of no consequence. The Labour Court has, as a measure of punishment, denied the 1st respondent back wages for a period of one and half of years. It is not as if the 1st respondent had indulged in acts of misappropriation or any act of causing loss to the Corporation. The act of punching the ticket at Stage No.1 in stead of at Stage No.5 is merely negligence of his duties for which the Labour Court-II denied him back wages for a period of one and half years. It is well settled that this Court, in Certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in appeal over the punishment substituted by the Labour Court. It is only if this Court were satisfied that the punishment as substituted by the Labour Court is one which should not been imposed at all or is one which shocks conscience of this Court, would there be any justification in interference. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has been reinstated into service on 2.3.1998 and has been working for nearly a decade. I do not see any reason, at this stage to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________ 21-1- 2008 asp