THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 7080 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the first respondent in ordering reinstatement as fresh Conductor for purpose of pay fixation, while modifying the petitioner’s removal order, and consequently direct the respondents to treat the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16.2.2010 as reinstatement of petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 18.02.1980. He was removed from service on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularity viz. he issued Rs.1/- denomination tickets to two lady passengers each instead of Rs.11/- each denomination tickets. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. In review filed before the first respondent, the order of removal was modified to one of reinstatement as afresh Conductor for the purpose of pay fixation and further clarifying that his past service will continue. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service, attendant benefits and all consequential service benefits. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet and domestic enquiry was conducted before he was removed from service. The charge of cash and ticket irregularity while he was conducting a bus on 11.12.2008 was framed. The appellate authority refused to interfere and in review, the first respondent granted the relief of reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh candidate. The petitioner would attain age of superannuation on 30.09.2012. The service rendered by him for the past 30 years is totally taken away. 5. No doubt, the scope of interference by this Court in the punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority or in the internal remedies of appeal and review, is a bit limited. However, if the record itself discloses that the punishment is unconscionably disproportionate, a judicial remedy is certainly available. 6. In the domestic enquiry, the TTI was examined as a witness. The plea of the petitioner is that on the fateful day, the bus was overloaded with 58 passengers, which is undisputed. It is his further plea that the two lady passengers who boarded into the bus at Suryapet to go to Nakrekal, were in drunken condition, and were creating nuisance at footboard and obstructing the boarding passengers, and that he was requesting them to come inside the bus. TTI admitted in the enquiry that the passengers in drunken condition were creating nuisance in he bus. This throws any amount of doubt as to the allegation against the petitioner. The discussion is undertaken only in the limited context of finding justification for denying the benefit of the past 30 years of service to the petitioner. This court is of the view that denial of back wages to the petitioner would meet the ends of justice and it would be adequate punishment for him. Further, this court in K.C.Narayana v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad[1], held that the direction as to the appointment of fresh conductor is opposed to the regulations framed by the Corporation. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service without back wages but with continuity of service for the purpose of extending the retirement benefits to him. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 19.04.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 7080 OF 2011 13.04.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 7080 OF 2011 19.04.2011 Between: G.Krishna …Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Region & another …Respondents [1] 2007 (5) ALD 416