HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 9899 OF 2008 Thursday, the Fifteenth day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adoni Depot, Kurnool District. Petitioner AND Sri L.Krishna Murthy and another. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO. 9899 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: Seeking to quash the order dated 17.11.2006 passed in I.D.No.205 of 2003 by the second respondent partly allowing the petition filed under Sec.2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and setting aside the proceedings dated 20.12.2002 issued by the petitioner herein as confirmed by the Divisional Manager and Regional Manager of the petitioner Corporation, directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without back wages, this writ petition is filed. The first respondent herein was appointed as a Condcutor in the Corporation on 3.12.1974. On 28.10.2001, while he was conducting the bus bearing No. AP-10/Z-6800 on Hyderabad – Adoni route, at 12.30 p.m. when a check was exercised at Shadnagar, certain cash irregularities were detected and since the irregularities were serious in nature, he was placed under suspension on 22.11.2001 contemplating an enquiry on 20.7.2002. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 1.11.2003 holding the employee guilty of the charges and after considering the objections of the first respondent dated 15.11.2002, a show cause notice was issued to him on 29.11.2002 proposing to impose penalty of removal from service. Ultimately, without considering his explanation dated 18.12.2002, the petitioner herein removed the first respondent by order dated 20.12.2002, which was also confirmed by the Divisional Manager in Appeal on 21.4.2003 and by the Regional Manager in Review on 27.5.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No.205 of 2003, before the first respondent and the first respondent by the order impugned in this writ petition, while setting aside the order of removal, has ordered reinstatement into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the respondent in the above I.D. Since it was represented that the first respondent herein was already reinstated into service, by order dated 1.5.2008, while issuing rule nisi, a learned Judge of this court has ordered interim stay of the award in other respects. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. It is contended by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the second respondent has erred in observing that there was no fault on the part of the first respondent ignoring the fact that he has reissued the used tickets defrauding the revenue to the tune of Rs.496/-, holding a post of trust as Conductor, who requires to maintain honesty and integrity. As can be seen from the order impugned, though the check was exercised on 28.10.2001, the check sheet Ex.M-1 and the Charge Memo Ex.M-2 were issued belatedly, which were acknowledged by the first respondent on 22.11.2001. That apart, the checking officials belatedly submitted the special report Ex.M-6 on 17.11.2001. It is also relevant to note that no top punch tickets for the value of Rs.496/-, which is amount alleged to have been defrauded, were obtained. The events of the checking officials belatedly submitting the report and other documents, strengthens the defence theory that the documents were prepared subsequently and not on 28.10.2001, on which date the check was exercised. Therefore, when there is no foolproof substantiation of charges leveled against the first respondent and lacunae in the charges, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the first respondent, appears to be harsh and, as such, the second respondent is perfectly justified in setting aside the proceedings dated 20.12.2002, as confirmed by the Divisional Manager and Regional Manager in Appeal and Review and ordering for his reinstatement with continuity of service. Having considered the material available on record, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, the award impugned is confirmed and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 15, 2010 MAS