THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.820 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as Conductor, on daily wage basis, on 16.05.1985, and his services were regularized shortly thereafter. A charge memo was issued on 01.02.1987, alleging cash and ticket irregularities. It was pointed out that the petitioner failed to collect fare from five passengers, who boarded at different stages and did not issue tickets till they got down from the bus. After the departmental enquiry was conducted, the Depot Manager, Godavarikhani, the 2nd respondent, passed an order, dated 31.07.1987, removing him from service. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the order of removal was set aside and it was directed that the petitioner shall be re- engaged as daily wage conductor afresh. Not being satisfied with that, the petitioner filed I.D.No.67 of 1998 before the Labour Court, Godavarikhani. Through award, dated 16.04.2001, the Labour Court rejected the I.D. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to as many as five passengers. The checking staff noticed this fact, when the passengers were alighting, after reaching the destination. The petitioner did not even plead that he was in the process of issuing tickets. Passengers travelled quite a long distance without paying fare and were found alighting from the bus. After conducting departmental enquiry, the 2nd respondent passed an order directing removal of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority took note of the fact that the petitioner did not enrich himself with the fare collected by him. Taking a lenient view, he directed re-appointment of the petitioner afresh. The said order was affirmed by the Labour Court. This Court would have shown some indulgence, had the petitioner been put to any serious hardship, on account of the direction given by the Appellate Authority for re-appointment. The loss of service to the petitioner is of three years. The petitioner has since been regularized as Conductor and no serious prejudice has caused to him, compared to the irregularities found to have been committed by him. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21.10.2010. GJ