THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 2071 OF 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in ID No. 59 of 2003 rejecting the industrial dispute. The writ petitioner is appointed as a Conductor by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 24.3.2002, he was conducting the bus of the corporation on route from Rajahmundry to Kottam. The Travelling Ticket Inspectors of the Corporation checked the bus at about 21.45 hours and found cash and ticket irregularities committed by the petitioner and issued a charge memo. It is alleged that the bus was carrying only four passengers. One of the passengers was issued ticket of Rs.5/- denomination. But, the said ticket number has not been entered in the statistical return. Another passenger who boarded the bus at Balaramapuram and bound for Chinnayyapalem stage was not issued a ticket and no fare was also collected from him. This conduct of the writ petitioner has been viewed by the Corporation as not a bona fide conduct. The explanation of the petitioner was that the bus was operating the last service and the check itself has taken place at a very late hour viz., 21.45 hours and since the bus has not yet reached its destination, the statistical return has not been closed and hence ticket number of Rs.5/- denomination has not been entered in the statistical return. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that every ticket is liable to be punched at two places, indicating the stage at which the passenger has boarded the bus and the stage of the destination. When once the ticket is punched, accordingly it becomes clear that the passenger is traveling either in the upward or downward journey, the entire route and hence such ticket cannot be re-cycled again, the next day. Insofar as the other limb viz., non issuing the ticket to the passenger, the learned counsel would submit that the process of issuing tickets has not been completed, because there are only four passengers and the ticket can be issued before the destination is reached. However, the domestic tribunal has not taken the explanation offered by the petitioner as a proper one inasmuch as the petitioner can re-cycle the ticket, which has not been entered in the statistical return later on. The conduct of the petitioner also gives scope to the unethical practices adopted by the conductors collecting fares when the passengers alight from the bus without issuing them the tickets. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation strenuously submits that the main source of income for the APSRTC is the revenue generated by the sale of tickets to the commuting passengers and by carrying freight by fleet of buses in the corporation. Therefore, any part or conduct on the conductors, which is likely to give scope for revenue to escape, has got to be viewed very seriously. Any such conduct on the part of an employee would disclose lack of necessary integrity. Persons whose integrity is suspect cannot be retained in service. For that will create a strain and drain to the revenue of the corporation. Until and unless it is demonstrated that the findings recorded by a Tribunal are perverse, in the sense that the Tribunal had arrived at a finding, which no reasonable body of men would have come to upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances. But nonetheless it is an equally settled principle that the quantum of punishment imposed must meet the quantum of guilt held established as well as the offender. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has issued a ticket of Rs.5/- denomination to a particular passenger duly punching it. But, he has not entered its number in the statistical return. Such a conduct perhaps can give rise or scope for recycling of the same ticket. However, at the end of the day, every conductor was required to deposit the cash collected by him together with the statistical return. Therefore, the possibility of recycling such a ticket is only a remote one. Insofar as the 2nd limb viz., non issuance of a ticket to one of the passengers is concerned, the petitioner has explained his conduct by showing that the journey has not yet been completed and since the petitioner has not collected any fare, no malicious intent can be attributed to him. If he were really to be corrupt, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not have avoided collecting the fare from the passenger right at the first instance. The very fact that he has not closed the statistical return for the trip amply makes it clear that he has no such bad intentions on his part. The likelihood of a particular ticket being recycled the next day is a very remote one. There is an element of speculation implied therein. Therefore, the extreme punishment of removal from service would not have been handed down to the petitioner. Regulation 8 of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations clearly spells out number of punishments that are capable of being inflicted upon the erring employees commencing from censure up to dismissal. Therefore, by the very nature of the regulations, every disciplinary authority was required to consider what could have been the most appropriate of the punishments that can be imposed upon such an employee. The disciplinary authority should have used the discretion more carefully and on sound lines. In every case, the disciplinary authority cannot straight away proceed to impose the extreme punishment of removal or dismissal from service. Such an approach reflects a pre-determined attitude on the part of the disciplinary authority to impose the extreme penalty. Quantum of guilt held established in this case does not really deserve a punishment of removal from service. But, at the same time, the corporation also cannot suffer persons lacking integrity to function as conductors. Lack of integrity on the part of a conductor will directly impact the revenue of the corporation. Therefore, in the instant case, the service of the petitioner could have been terminated if the corporation has reason to believe that it is not advisable to retain the writ petitioner in service any longer and it could have achieved the said objective by declaring him to have retired from service. That would have brought to an end the relationship of `Master and Servant’ between him and the corporation. Under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, power is conferred upon the Labour Court to substitute a suitable punishment to the one imposed by the disciplinary authority on the petitioner. Instead of remitting the matter for re-consideration to substitute another punishment, I consider it appropriate to take on record the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that court in the above matter can treat the petitioner to have retired from service w.e.f., 10.7.2002, the date on which the punishment order has been originally passed. In that view of the matter, the order of punishment dated 10.7.2002 is modified to that of retirement from service by the writ petitioner on voluntary basis. The respondent corporation will treat the petitioner to have retired from service on 10.7.2002 instead of treating him who have been removed from service. On that basis, the terminal benefits of the petitioner be calculated and worked out and paid to him within a maximum period of three months from today. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 14th February 2011