THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7029 of 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, hitherto a Conductor with the A.P.S.R.T.C, aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D. No.244 of 1998 dated 31.10.2000 confirming the punishment of removal passed by the second respondent dated 24.03.1992. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C. on 03.05.1976 and was allotted staff No.E-63523. In the evening of 28.09.1997, while the petitioner was conducting the bus from R.C.Puram to Visakhapatnam, a passenger boarded the bus at Kakinada to go to Visakhapatnam. The petitioner issued a ticket to that passenger who again boarded the bus, in the return journey, at Kotha Road Junction, Visakhapatnam and took a ticket to Kakinada. On the next day i.e., on 29.09.1997 the passenger complained to the Depot Manager that the petitioner had taken Rs.66/- for the direct journey from Visakhapatnam to Velangi; and, even though tickets worth Rs.69/- was given to him, one ticket of Rs.9/- was taken by the petitioner from his cash bag. The passenger surrendered copies of the tickets to the Depot Manager. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Chief Inspector, R.C.Puram on 08.11.1997 wherein the petitioner is said to have admitted that the ticket, worth Rs.50/-, bearing No.051/037905 was sold and accounted in the upward journey from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam in SR dated 28.09.1997; and he had given Rs.9/- along with Rs.50/- denomination to the complainant in the return journey. The petitioner was charged of having punched the ticket of Rs.50/- denomination on stages 14 to 3 instead of 3 to 14 in the upward journey. He was also charged of having reissued ticket bearing No.051/837905 of Rs.50/- denomination to the passenger who boarded at Visakhapatnam, Kotha Road junction, and was bound for Velangi in the down journey. On the petitioner being held guilty in the departmental enquiry, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager who, by order dated 30.04.1998, rejected the appeal. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition to the Regional Manager, Rajahmundry who also rejected the petition on 28.05.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.244 of 1998. On behalf of the petitioner no oral or documentary evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. On behalf of the management Exs.M-1 to M-13 were marked. The Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, held that the passenger had specifically stated that he had traveled from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam and, after he completed the journey, there was no scope for him to produce the upward journey ticket even though he undertook the journey both upward and downward in the same bus. The Tribunal observed that the ticket bearing No.051/837905 for Rs.50/- denomination, admittedly of the upward journey, was issued by the petitioner; the plea of wrong punching could not be accepted as this ticket number was entered in SR-Ex-M1 in the upward journey from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam; it was the specific case of the passenger, both in Ex.M-9-statement before the Enquiry Officer, as well as Ex.M-2 the complaint given to the Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram, that he had torn the ticket after he completed the upward journey from Kakinada to Visakhapatnam and he was only left with the downward journey tickets of Rs.50/-, Rs.9/- and Rs.10/- denomination; and, therefore, the theory of wrong punching put forth by he petitioner had no legs to stand. The Tribunal observed that the passenger had only complained about the petitioner’s taking out Rs.9/- ticket from his cash bag; and that the said ticket of Rs.9/- denomination was not properly accounted for in the downward journey. The Tribunal held that the ticket of Rs.50/- denomination issued by the petitioner was reissued, and the Enquiry Officer had rightly held that the charge was proved. The Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the findings arrived at in the Domestic Enquiry and the order of the appellate and revisional authorities. On the quantum of punishment the Tribunal observed that it was a charge of serious misconduct of misappropriation and, as such, removal from service was neither harsh nor severe; and there are no extenuating circumstances to interfere with the punishment of removal as ordered by the punishing authority under Ex.M.11. Before this Court Sri S.M.Subhan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would dispute the findings recorded both in the domestic enquiry and before the Industrial Tribunal. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner has since retired from service and as such a lenient view be taken at least to the extent of extending to him the benefit of notional increments so that it would enure to his benefit in the form of retiral benefits payable to him. On the other hand Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, Learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C., would seek to sustain the award of the Industrial Tribunal contending that, since it was a charge of misappropriation of public funds (funds of the APSRTC), a lenient view cannot be taken. The scope of Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court does not sit in judgment over findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal nor would it substitute its views for that of the Industrial Tribunal. It is only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or the findings recorded are perverse or there is no evidence to establish the charge, would this Court be justified in interference. The award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any such infirmity. The Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had reissued the tickets already issued for denomination of Rs.50/-, and had misappropriated a sum of Rs.50/- paid the passenger on the downward journey. As the charge of misappropriation was held established it cannot be said that the punishment of removal is unduly harsh or severe. Even otherwise, the scope of interference on the quantum of punishment is limited. It is only if the punishment is one which could not have been imposed at all, or it shocks its conscience, would this Court be justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the Constitution of India. As the charge of misappropriation was held established, the punishment cannot be said to suffer from infirmity on either of the two counts. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 9th December 2010 RRB/ASP