HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1758 OF 2004 Between: N. Shiva Ramulu S/o Bagaiah aged 51 years ………….Petitioner AND The Labour Court –II, IV Floor Chandravihar and one another ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order-dated 16.04.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 24090 of 1995 by the learned single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the services of the second respondent- Corporation as Conductor in 1979 and continuously worked till he was removed from service by an order dated 21.12.1991 of the second respondent. While the appellant was conducting bus service on 17.6.1990 between Rayakode and Zaheerabad, a check was conducted by the checking officials at Stage No. 4/3 and they found some passengers travelling without tickets. It is stated that the Checking Officials issued a charge memo to the appellant framing the following charges: “1. For having punched the ticket Nos. 348/120923 to 925 of Rs. 2.75 paise denomination on 01 and also 07 at Nundi (Three Punch) and 05 at Varaku along with combination of Rs. 1.25 paise denomination C47/655690, 91, 92 and issued to the passengers who were boarded your bus at Raikode bound for Zaheerabad ex-states 7 to 1, instead of punching 07 and 01 at Nundi and Varaku, you have further punched ticket No. 348/120926 to 932 of Rs. 2.75 denomination at 07 and 05 at Varaku instead of punching 1 at Varaku, which is a misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi a) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” 2. For having issued combination tickets instead of having sufficient tickets of Rs. 4/- denomination tickets in your hand tray to the above said passengers, also the alternations in the S.R is clearly evident that you have re-issued the tickets E. 10 of Rs. 2.75 denomination in combination of Rs. 1.25 paid denomination tickets, which is a misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (xxiii) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct Regulations 1963”. Basing on the above charges, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges framed against the appellant have been established. The second respondent without assigning any reasons suspended the appellant from service and after that he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant raised an Industrial Dispute and the labour Court directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant into service without break in service but without backwages. It further directed that the appellant be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of his cadre on reinstatement. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Judge failed to see when the order of removal is set aside, it operates from retrospective effect i.e., from the date of removal as such the appellant deemed to be in service for all practical purposes, but the first respondent has directed that the appellant be placed at the bottom of conductors seniority which is contrary to the settled principles of law and from deviating from the normal rule. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Labour and also the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC submit that there are no grounds to interfere with order impugned as the Labour Court has taken a lenient view and considered the case of the appellant therefore, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. It is on record that the appellant was removed from service basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer that the charges framed against the appellant were proved. The appellant raised an Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court observed that the Checking Officials did not place any cogent evidence on record to show that the appellant has re-issued the already used tickets and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant into service without break in service but without backwages. It further directed that the appellant be placed at the bottom of the Seniority list of his cadre on reinstatement. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the last portion of the order viz., “ the respondent shall also place the petitioner at the bottom of the seniority list of his cadre on reinstatement” is quashed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part quashing the last portion of the direction given by the labour Court dated 15.6.1994 in I.D.No. 515 of 1992. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATE: 02.08.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.