THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1083 of 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the correctness of the Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition instituted by him questioning the validity of the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.46 of 2004. The appellant was employed as a Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’). He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings pursuant to a charge sheet drawn against him on 30-07-2003. There are two counts of charges laid against him. First count relates to issuance of three tickets of the denomination of Rs.7/- after collecting the fare from three passengers. The three tickets were unconcerned to Tray No.282 STAR No.07/586776, belonging to the appellant. The second count relates to keeping two unconcerned tickets of Rs.7/- denomination in the cash book as detected by the Traveling Ticket Inspectors (TTIs) at the point of check. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of both the counts of charges. Therefore, the Depot Manager by his Proceedings dated 18-12-2003 removed the appellant from service by way of penalty. Since, the appeal preferred by the appellant met with failure on 23-02-2004, he raised the industrial dispute. The Labour Court has found that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Regulations of the Corporation. The Labour Court also found that there is no good reason to interfere with the findings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The learned single Judge has also come to the conclusion that it is not a mere coincidence that the three passengers, to whom the appellant issued Rs.7/- denomination tickets, are tallying with the same series of two Rs.7/- denomination tickets that are found in his cash bag. Therefore, the appellant has, undoubtedly, sold three tickets of Rs.7/- denomination to three different passengers after collecting the said fare amount from them. Two other tickets have not been sold. Though the three passengers have tried to explain away the circumstance of their holding the tickets in question with them, but the explanation offered by them was far from satisfactory. Therefore, the learned single Judge has not found any merit in the writ petition and he, accordingly, dismissed the same. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri V. Narasimha Goud has urged only one contention before us, namely, that the Labour Court has failed to address itself with regard to the quantum of punishment in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel has also placed strong reliance upon the Judgment rendered by his Court in THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC, VISAKHAPATNAM v. S.S.RAJAN AND ANOTHER[1], in which it has been held as under: “…………….. It is to be noticed that even if the Industrial Tribunal does not consider specifically whether the punishment imposed is proportionate or not, the High Court is not barred to scrutinize the said fact while exercising its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.” We have perused the Award of the Labour Court as well as the reasoning assigned by the learned single Judge for dismissing the writ petition, carefully. The Award of the Labour Court has taken into account of the probabilities of the case into consideration in holding that the charges laid against the petitioner appellant, as proved. But however, what we fail to understand is the fare that was collected from the three passengers by issuing them Rs.7/- denomination tickets, if it is accounted for towards the revenue of the Corporation, the charge of dishonesty or misappropriation against the petitioner appellant would not stick to him. No material has been adduced to show whether the cash bag has been completely checked and noted down its contents by the TTIs. Therefore, if the petitioner appellant has already accounted for Rs.21/- collected by him from the three passengers, then his conduct would not amount to exhibiting any dishonesty or intended misappropriation of the said money. At best he can be held guilty of using tickets, which are not concerned to his tray. Issuing unconcerned tickets can possibly lead to misappropriation of the funds if there was no proper vigilance exhibited by the officials of the Corporation. The likelihood of the misappropriation depending upon the laxity of the supervision should not have resulted in an extremely harsh punishment of removal from service. This is where we find some force in the submission of the learned counsel Sri V. Narasimha Goud. As was already noticed supra, the Division Bench of this Court in S.S.Rajan’s case cited (1) supra, held that the High Court is not barred to scrutinize the record for the purpose of exercising its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, consider that the ends of justice would meet if the appellant is denied the back wages completely, as it is nearly eight years since he has been removed from service. Hence, we pass the following order: The writ appeal is disposed of directing the second respondent to reinstate the appellant in service with the benefit of continuity of service only for the purpose of granting terminal benefits. He is not entitled for any back wages. Three months time is granted to the second respondent for implementation of the same. No costs. --------------------------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 13th December 2011 [1] 1995 (3) ALD 992 (DB)