THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3019 OF 2006 O R D E R: Heard Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. This Writ Petition has been instituted by a former conductor employed with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’), questioning the correctness of the award passed on 14.07.2005 in I.D.No. 129 of 2005 raised by him, challenging the proceedings, dated 04.01.2003. The petitioner was appointed as a regular conductor in the Corporation on 30.04.2001. On 30.08.2002, he was assigned duty to the service operated to Mumbai. He returned from Mumbai on 31.08.2002. At the end of the duty, every conductor was required to close the waybill and remit the cash in the depot. There were no ticket irregularities committed by the writ petitioner, but however, he deposited cash which was found short by Rs.1,000/-. As soon as he was informed of the short remittance, he made good the same by remitting the said amount. The short remittance of Rs.1,000/- was viewed very serious by the Corporation. The Corporation has also found that he has opened up two ticket blocks of Rs.40/- denomination, which is not the appropriate procedure. He is supposed to have opened only one block of tickets and the 2nd block ought to have been opened up only after the 1st block of tickets are exhausted. For the aforementioned irregularities, he has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, which, ultimately, ended in an order passed on 04.01.2003 imposing the punishment of removal from service. Against that order of removal, the petitioner raised I.D. No. 209 of 2003, which was subsequently, renumbered as I.D.No. 129 of 2005. Upon perusing the entire material, which was brought before the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that the writ petitioner has not committed any ticket irregularities. He has only remitted the cash available with him at the end of the duty hour on 31.08.2002. After verification, it was found short by Rs.1,000/- and he made good the short immediately. That conduct of the writ petitioner was found as a temporary misappropriation by the Corporation. It is also a fact that the writ petitioner has opened up two separate blocks of tickets of Rs.40/- denomination. He was required to exhaust one block of tickets before the 2nd bundle of tickets are opened up. The conduct of the writ petitioner in this regard is merely an irregularity and it does not amount to misconduct. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have exercised properly the discretion vested in it for imposing an appropriate punishment. The Labour Court has noticed that the writ petitioner has been recruited to the service of the Corporation only on 30.04.2001 and has less than 1 ½ years service by the time he has been asked to handle the service to Mumbai and come back. It is clear that he did not have enough experience to handle a heavy service and perhaps, because of the exigencies of services, the Corporation had to deploy him for that particular service. While it is true that misappropriation of Corporation funds cannot be taken too lightly, but the bona fides of the conduct exhibited by the writ petitioner also deserve to be taken into account and consideration. The writ petitioner has promptly paid up the deficiency of cash remitted by him. Therefore, a punishment of stoppage of one increment would have met the quantum of guilt held established. Instead, imposition of removal from service altogether is grossly disproportionate. It is a settled principle of law that the punishment must not only meet the quantum of guilt held established, but must also meet the status of the offender. The offender was an young person with very little experience of conducting the buses of the Corporation, having been recruited to its service and has put in less than two years of service by the time the incident has taken place and this is the first occasion where the conduct of the writ petitioner was found to be objectionable by the Corporation. Therefore, the Tribunal should have exercised the power of substitution of punishment available with it properly and carefully. It failed to do so. In normal circumstances, I would have remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by the Labour Court in this regard, but however, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, to my mind very rightly, suggested for the Court itself to substitute a suitable punishment. Stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect would have met the ends of justice, so that it would have acted as a corrective mechanism, so long as the writ petitioner remains in the service of the respondent Corporation. I therefore, substitute the order of punishment of removal imposed by the Depot Manager, Tandur Depot, Ranga Reddy District on 04.01.200 with that of stoppage of one annual grade increment, which falls next. At the same time, the writ petitioner shall not be paid any back wages, so that he will correct himself while on duty to be diligent henceforth. Hence, the writ petitioner is directed to be reinstated as a conductor and he will not be entitled to be paid any back wages for the period between 04.01.2003 till the date of reinstatement and he will not also be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner be reinstated within a maximum period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 10th February 2011s ksld