THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.893 of 2004 ORDER: The 1st respondent is working as Conductor in the S.Kota Depot of APSRTC. On 12.03.2001, he was conducting a bus from Chodavaram to S.Kota. A check was caused and it was found that he has collected a sum of Rs.9/- from a batch of three passengers, but issued two tickets of Rs.3/-, each, and a white paper. Based on this observation, a charge sheet was issued. Departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner passed an order, dated 09.08.2001, directing removal of the 1st respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed I.D.No.173 of 2001 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Through its award, dated 04.03.2003, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal, but imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with 25% back wages. Continuity of service was also ordered. The award is challenged in this writ petition. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The charge framed against the 1st respondent is that he issued a white paper, as ticket of denomination of Rs.3/-. The explanation of the 1st respondent was that he mistook the white paper for a ticket, when he issued a bunch of three tickets to the batch of three passengers. The explanation did not weigh with the petitioner, and in the domestic enquiry, the charge was held proved. The Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment. 25% back wages were awarded and continuity of service was also ordered. The 1st respondent did not dispute that he has issued only two tickets, after collecting the fare from three passengers. He admitted that a white paper was issued, as though it is a ticket. There is some conflicting version, on this aspect. The white paper is said to be from a new bundle, that is opened. It is not even mentioned that all the three tickets were issued from a new bundle, or some of them from old bundle, and some, from new one. Whatever be the fact, the 1st respondent was under obligation to ensure that proper tickets are issued. The Labour Court mostly proceeded on the assumption that there was no misappropriation on the part of the 1st respondent. It failed to take note of the fact that, but for the check effected on this batch, the 1st respondent would have stood to the benefit of Rs.3/-, representing the cost of one ticket. There are instances where the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the removal of service, even where the amount involved was one rupee. Notwithstanding the clear admission on the part of the 1st respondent, as to the issuance of a white paper, as ticket, there is some ambiguity about the version of the passengers. At one stage, it is stated that a sum of Rs.9/- was tendered at a time, and at another stage, it was stated that initially Rs.6/- was paid, and thereafter, another passenger joined them, further sum of Rs.3/-, was paid. This Court is of the view that taking the totality of the circumstances, the reinstatement of the 1st respondent with the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect can be sustained, but not the one, as to payment of 25% back wages. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside that part of the award in I.D.No.173 of 2001, which directed payment of 25% back wages. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21.10.2010. GJ