THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 33899 of 1998 DATE: 6-2-2008 Between: P.Rajeshekhar …… Petitioner And 1. The Regional Manager (HCR) PARTC, JBC Pikcet Secunderabad And another … Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 33899 of 1998 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the reviewing authority dated 23.2.1996 the present writ petition is filed. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the reviewing authority had himself held that the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets at the time of the check and had modified the punishment of removal to the one impugned in this writ petition which reads as under: “1. Petitioner shall be reinstated into service as Conductor Gr.II reducing his pay by one incremental stage from Rs.1700/- to Rs.1645/- in the scale of Rs.1645-55-2140-65-2595-70-3155 for a period of two years with having effect of postponement of future increments for two years. 2. The period from the date of his removal from service till the date of his reporting for duty at the unit posted shall be treated as NOT ON DUTY for all purposes, viz., PF, Gratuity, leave, increments, promotion, seniority, etc., 3. He should pay fresh security deposit; 4. His reinstatement shall be subject to medical fitness for A-2 category in the medical examination and production of valid conductor licence 5. He should pay back all the dues viz., festival advance, short remittance of bus cash and other amounts, if any, pending due prior to the date of his removal from service and submit no due certificate from depot Manager, Jeedimetal Depot as well as from Accounts Officer (HYDRABAD city Region) at Rathifile, Secunderabad. 6. If the above terms and conditions mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 are acceptable to him, he may give in writing that the above terms are acceptable to him. Learned counsel would submit that such a harsh punishment ought not to have been imposed when the petitioner had no malafide intention of misappropriating the funds of the Corporation. The charge held established against the petitioner is that he had failed to issue tickets to a batch of four adults and two chargeable children who were found alighting at Erragadda having boarded the bus at Balanagar, ex-stages 11 to 8 despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.9.50 at Rs.1.75 ps per adult and Rs.1.25 for each child and that the passengers, in their statement, had stated that they had paid Rs.10/- towards the bus for four adults and two children for their journey from Balanagar to Erragadda and that, while the petitioner had returned Rs.0-50 ps change, he had not issued the tickets. This statement was attested by the petitioner himself. The punishment of removal from service was substituted only on account of the admission of the checking officials, in cross-examination, that the petitioner was found issuing tickets when they boarded the bus to exercise the check. The passengers are said to have boarded the bus at Balanagar and were found alighting at Erragadda and were traveling from stage No.11 to Stage No.8. While Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner was still in the process of issuing tickets and the delay was only on account of a large number of passengers in the bus, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Corporation, would vehemently contend that the distance, between Balanagar where the passengers had boarded the bus and Erragadda where they had alighted from the bus at the time of check, is more than 6.00 K.Ms. and there was no reason for the petitioner to have failed to issue tickets despite having collected the fare. Learned standing counsel would submit that the very fact that the petitioner had collected fare from the passengers would, by itself, establish that his failure to issue tickets was only with a view to pocket the proceeds. According to the Learned Standing Counsel, the mere fact that the checking official had stated, during the course of departmental enquiry, that the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets, would not absolve the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. Learned standing counsel would contend that the reviewing authority had taken a lenient view and that his order did not necessitate interference. The conductors of the APSRTC work in a fiduciary capacity. I n Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S.Hullikatti (AIR 2001 SC 930), the Supreme Court observed that it was the responsibility of bus conductor to collect correct fares from the passengers and deposit the same in the Corporation, that conductors act in a fiduciary capacity, that it would be gross misconduct if, knowingly, they did not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare and that, in such cases, interference with the punishment of dismissal from service was a case of misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court. I n Regional Manager, Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002(1) LLJ 234), the Supreme Court held that the proved acts amounted either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and bus conductors, who by their actions or inactions, caused financial loss to the Corporation, were not fit to be retained in service. In V.Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. (AIR 2005 SC 3417), the Supreme Court held that Courts/Tribunals should not interfere unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. The charges held established against the petitioner are severe and serious in nature. In substituting the punishment of removal from service, with the order impugned, the reviewing authority has, indeed, taken an extremely lenient view and has been unduly sympathetic. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.2.1996. While Sri V.Naraimha Goud, initially contended that the petitioner could not have been imposed two punishments, he later submitted that he did not press for an adjudication on this question, in the present case, fairly stating that no such plea has been taken in this regard in the writ petition. It is, therefore, unnecessary for this Court to examine as to whether the petitioner has been imposed more than one punishment and whether or not such imposition is in accordance with the statutory regulations. Suffice to hold that the punishment as substituted by the reviewing authority, for that of removal from service, for the charges held established cannot be said to be disproportionate. It is well settled that the nature and extent of punishment to be imposed for proved acts of misconduct is in the employer’s realm and this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be loathe to interfere with orders of the punishment imposed for proved misconduct unless the punishment is one which should not have been imposed at all or is one which shocks the conscience of the Court. It cannot be said that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the punishment as substituted by the reviewing authority is one such which necessitates interference. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________ 6-2-2008 asp