THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.29026 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1995. He was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Suryapet, the 2nd respondent herein, through order, dated 02.03.2009, on the allegation that he collected a fare of Rs.6/- from a passenger, but he did not issue ticket. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. In the reviews filed before the 1st respondent, an order of removal was modified to the one of reinstatement into service as fresh conductor, denying the petitioner the benefit of his past service. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the condition imposed by the 1st respondent. Heard Sri Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet and domestic enquiry was conducted, before he was removed from service. The charge against the petitioner was that he collected a fare of Rs.6/-, while conducting a bus on 20.06.2008. The appellate Authority refused to interfere and the 1st respondent granted the relief of reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh candidate. The petitioner would attain the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011. The service rendered by him for the past 34 years is totally taken away. The scope of interference by this Court in the punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority or in the internal remedies of appeal and review, is a bit limited. However, if the record itself discloses that the punishment is unconscionably disproportionate, the judicial remedy is certainly available. In the domestic enquiry the TTI was examined as a witness. The plea of the petitioner was that the passenger from whom a fare of Rs.6/- is said to have been collected was not only in drunken condition, but was asleep and he did not respond when the fare was demanded. A specific question was put to TTI, as to whether the passenger in question was sleeping in the last seat and was fully intoxicated. The TTI answered the question in the positive. This throws any amount of doubt as to the allegation against the petitioner. The discussion is undertaken only in the limited context of finding justification for denying the benefit of the past 34 years of service to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that denial of back wages to the petitioner would meet the ends of justice and it would be adequate punishment for him. Further, this Court in K.C.Narayana v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad[1] held that the direction as to appointment as fresh conductor is opposed to the regulations framed by the Corporation. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service without back wages but with continuity of service for the purpose of extending the retirement benefits to him. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.11.2010. GJ [1] 2007 (5) ALD 416