HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1290 OF 2011 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uppal, Hyderabad ………….Appellant AND G. Sudhakar, S/o late Narsimha ………….Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the respondent in the Writ Petition, challenging the direction issued by the learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition instituted by the respondent herein. The respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1986 and his services were regularized in that cadre with effect from 16.2.1987. When he was conducting the bus bearing No. AP10Z 3504 on route No. 141/R from Uppal to Nampally, a check was exercised by the checking officials and it was found that the respondent herein has committed certain cash and ticket irregularities and hence a charge sheet was issued to him by framing the following charges: “1. For having failed to complete the tickets issued within one fare stage, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 4 passengers who found travelling without tickets from Ramanthapur to Vittalvadi, ex-stages 5 to 9/10 in spite of collecting from them the requisite fare of Rs. 4.50 ps. Each (total rs.18-00) at their boarding place itself, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The respondent submitted a detailed explanation to the above charges. Not satisfied with the same, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted his report and on the basis of the said report the Management-appellant herein, removed the respondent from service on 26.8.2002. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed an appeal and revision and both were dismissed confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court and the Labour Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same respondent filed Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent herein into service with continuity of service, but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits. Learned Judge also directed that the service between the date of removal till the date of reinstatement shall be considered only for the purpose of terminal benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the APSRTC. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition and ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Additional Labour Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the order. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. It is on record that the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the Labour Court have recorded a finding that the charges are proved in full. But as the Conductor with 14 years of service, suffered only small punishments, removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. In those circumstances, the learned Single Judge observed that the Labour Court has not exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D Act properly and directed the appellant herein to reinstate the writ petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages and without any attendant benefits. The learned Judge also observed that the service between the date of removal till the date of reinstatement shall be considered only for the purpose of terminal benefits. In our opinion, by denying backwages and attendant benefits the learned Single Judge struck a fine balance between both he parties. Hence, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, six weeks time is granted to the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent into service. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 21.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.