THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1291 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Conductor in Dhone Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in 1996. On 12.06.2000, when he was conducting a service from Yadiki to Dhone, a check was conducted at Stage No.11. Stating that the petitioner failed to collect fare and issue tickets to five passengers, who boarded at the starting point, and that he did not follow the rule of ‘issue and start’, a charge sheet was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with that, the Depot Manager, respondent No.2 herein, appointed an Enquiry Officer. The charges were held proved. Taking the same into account, respondent No.2 passed an order, dated 30.12.2000, imposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner filed I.D.No.88 of 2001 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Anantapur. Through award, dated 12.03.2003, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, denying the back wages. The punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and reduction of seniority of the petitioner by 30 places was imposed. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The charge against the petitioner is that he failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to five passengers. Charges 1 and 3 are almost formal in nature. In his explanation, the petitioner stated that when he was in the process to collect fare and issue tickets, the check has taken place. Domestic enquiry was conducted and through order, dated 30.12.2000, respondent No.2 removed the petitioner from service. The Labour Court was impressed by the fact that the allegation against the petitioner is not grave and that it was not even alleged that he has misappropriated any amount. In a way, it has accepted the version of the petitioner. However, when it came to the question of granting the relief, a relatively tough approach was adopted. The lapse on the part of the petitioner in following the rule of “issue and start” ought not to have resulted in imposing of such serious penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, which would have the effect upon the salary of the petitioner for the rest of his career. Reduction of seniority by 30 places is equally serious. It must not be forgotten that even where the charges relatively serious in nature are proved, the discretion of the Labour Court under Section 11-A is wide enough. Once the charges were in a way found to be not proved, the punishment of such serious nature ought not to have been imposed. This Court is of the view that if the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and denial of back wages would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed modifying the award passed by the Labour Court to the effect that the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect be imposed against the petitioner. The direction as to reduction of his place in the seniority list is set aside. In all other respects, the award shall hold good. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 23.12.2010. kdl