THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20093 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.46 of 2003 dated 13.9.2005 on the file of the learned Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking to set aside the removal order passed by the Respondent-Depot Manager was dismissed. Petitioner is the workman and respondent is management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1986 and his services were regularized in that cadre with effect from 16.2.1987. The petitioner while conducting the Bus bearing No.AP10Z 3504 on route No.141/R from Uppal to Nampally, a check was exercised by the checking officials and it was found that the petitioner has committed certain cash and ticket irregularities and thereafter a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner enumerating the following charges: “1. For having failed to complete the tickets issued within one fare stage, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 4 passengers who found traveling without tickets from Ramanthapur to Vittalvadi, ex-stages 5 to 9/10 in spite of collecting from them the requisite fare of Rs.4-50 ps. each (total Rs.18-00) at their boarding place itself, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the above charges. Having not satisfied with the same, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted his report and on the basis of the said report and after issuing show cause notice, the respondent-Management passed order of removal dated 26.8.2002. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal and revision and both the appellate authority and revisional authority dismissed the same confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, having left with no other option, petitioner raised Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of I.D. Act before the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, none were examined on either side and no documents were marked on behalf of petitioner. However, on behalf of respondent-management, Exs.M1 to M18 were marked. The Labour Court, after a detailed consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner guilty of charges and the removal order does not call for any interference, hence dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the past service of the petitioner was very clean and the petitioner had put in more than 14 years of service as on the date of removal from service. He further contended that even assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Whereas the learned counsel for respondent submitted that the past conduct of the petitioner was not clean. He had suffered punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of two years and his annual grade increment was deferred for a period of six months and he was censured once. Apart from that the present charges are grave in nature and they are proved in full, therefore petitioner cannot be shown any lenience and the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. In the spot statement of the petitioner, it was recorded that among the four passengers, three are ladies, who were sitting in the front side of the Bus and the man was sitting in the rear side and both of them have cheated him stating that the ticket will be taken by the other and therefore there was no mistake on his part. In the domestic enquiry, passengers were examined, in which they have stated that they were under threat to say that in spite of collecting fare, petitioner failed to issue tickets. Be that as it may, the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the Labour Court have recorded a finding that the charges are proved in full. Therefore, no interference can be made into the findings recorded on merits. However, I am of the considered opinion that a Conductor with 14 years of service, suffered only small punishments as noticed above, removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Therefore, I am of the view that the Labour Court has not exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act properly, therefore the award passed by the Labour Court is modified to be read as under: “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits. The service between the date of removal till the date of reinstatement shall be considered only for the purpose of terminal benefits.” The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 1.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20093 of 2005 1.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20093 of 2005 Date: 1st February, 2011 Between: G.Sudhakar .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Uppal, Hyderabad. .. Respondent