THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.15492 OF 1999 DT.02.06.2010 Between: A.Raj Naik …………Petitioner Vs. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, represented by its Presiding Officer, Warangal District and another. ………Respondents. O R D E R: The petitioner herein joined the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as a Conductor in the year 1979. On 06.04.1981 while he was conducting the bus AAZ 1616, the officials who conducted a check having found certain cash and ticket irregularities, issued a charge memo, which ultimately resulted in his removal by order, dated 30.11.1981. The petitioner challenged the said order by raising a dispute under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said I.D.No.51 of 1995 was disposed of by award dated 21.08.1998 setting aside the removal order dated 30.11.1981, further directing the respondent to employ the petitioner as a conductor as “fresh recruit”, making it clear that the petitioner was not entitled to any backwages, continuity or attendant benefits. The said award was challenged in this writ petition to the extent of directing the appointment as a fresh recruitment. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. The passengers have stated before the checking officials that they paid the amount but the conductor did not issue the tickets till the time of the check. Except the said statement of the passengers, the petitioner did not choose to submit any explanation in the charge sheet and no evidence was adduced on his behalf. In his spot explanation, the petitioner admitted about the alleged activities. The court below found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on evidence. However, taking into consideration the fact that the punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate, the Tribunal directed the Corporation to re-engage the petitioner as a fresh recruit. The said discretion exercised by the Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Act cannot be questioned in this writ petition. This is a rare case where the allegations were admitted by the petitioner himself and that apart the same have also been substantiated by the statements of the passengers. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________ G.ROHINI J., Dt.02.06.2010 tjs