THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14364 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was employed as Conductor in the APSRTC, on 28.2.1999, and his services were regularized on 1.1.2000. He was working in the Deverakonda Depot of APSRTC. On 6.3.2005, he was on duty of a bus from Deverakonda to Hyderabad. A check was affected on the return journey. A check report was issued, stating that the petitioner reissued a ticket of denomination of Rs.30/- to a passenger, who was traveling from Hyderabad to Mallepally. This was followed by a charge sheet and departmental enquiry. Through an order dated 28.11.2005, the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Manager was rejected on 12.4.2006, and the review to the Regional Manager on 11.7.2006 was dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, and it was taken up as I.D.No.98 of 2006. The Labour Court passed an award dated 15.10.2007, dismissing the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the inordinate delay in issuing charge memo itself, discloses that the case against the petitioner was cooked up. He contends that though the check is said to have taken place on 6.3.2005, the charge memo was issued only on 15.3.2005. He contends that the ticket of denomination of Rs.30/- was punched wrongly by the petitioner under confusion, when the bus started the return journey from Hyderabad. He contends that the mistake was immediately noticed and correct punching was done, even before any check took place. Learned counsel submits that the Labour Court had assumed to itself several contingencies, such as, strength of a Union, to dissuade the checking officials to fabricate the record, etc. He submits that the minor lapse of the petitioner in wrongly punching a ticket, must not result in denial of livelihood to him, particularly when his past service was clean. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner admitted that he punched a ticket, by mistake, and the explanation offered by him does not extricate him from the liability. He submits that the explanation offered by the petitioner does not fit into the actual facts. Learned counsel points out that the fraud committed on the Corporation is enormous, and the re- issuance of a ticket worth Rs.30/-, discloses the magnitude of the same. The allegation against the petitioner is that he reissued a ticket worth Rs.30/-, to a passenger. The check took place on the return journey of the bus at Mallepally. When the checking officials found a ticket bearing No.906, being punched many times, they suspected that it could have been reissued. The consistent version of the petitioner, be it at the time of checking, or during the course of departmental enquiry, was that a ticket was issued to a passenger, who boarded the bus at starting point on the return journey i.e. Stages 24 to 3, and by mistake, he punched it from Stages 1 to 23. This explanation, hardly becomes acceptable. The reason is that there is every likelihood of a conductor taking the starting point as the destination and vice-versa. The up trip would be starting point for the down trip. Therefore, it is probable that the noting of said number may be mistaken. In the instant case, the starting stage was No.1 and the destination is Stage 24. At the most, Stage 24 could have been mistaken for Stage-1, or vice-versa. The possibility of a conductor, that too, an experienced one, like the petitioner, for mistaking the starting point at the return journey, to be stage No.23, and the destination of the passenger, which admittedly was in between, to be the end of the trip, is jut unthinkable. The stage number for a passenger from Hyderabad to Mallepally was 24 and 1. Any amount of explanation for punching them between 1 and 23, cannot be accepted. The only inference is that the ticket was issued for a journey, between stages 1 to 23. The interpolations that were found on the statistical report, in relation to the tickets of denomination of Rs.30/-, further added strength to the case of the Corporation. The 2nd respondent in the disciplinary proceedings as well as the Labour Court in its award, had dealt with the matter, objectively. The High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit as an appellate authority, to review the findings on facts. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 7th July 2008 PAN