THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5990 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in 1968. Thereafter, he earned promotions to various posts and became Depot Clerk on 29.06.1996, in Tirupathi Depot-I. A charge sheet was issued to him on 20.10.1999 alleging that he is responsible for missing of tickets worth Rs.1,49,493/-. Another charge sheet was issued on 29.11.1999 alleging that he did not account for tickets worth Rs.59,785/- and kept the tickets worth Rs.70,000/- idle. The petitioner submitted his explanation to both the charge sheets. Not satisfied with that, the Depot Manager, respondent No.3 herein, appointed an Enquiry Officer. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave. Taking the same into account, respondent No.3 passed an order, dated 27.09.2000, imposing the punishment of removal from service. He has also directed recovery of a sum of Rs.2, 09,278/- in all. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, respondent No.1 herein. The appeal was rejected on 29.06.2001. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The allegation against the petitioner under both the charges is that he did not account for ticket worth Rs.2,09,278/-. While as to some of the tickets he is said to have not physically verified at all, as regards others, the allegation is that he did not show them in computer or the relevant records. In his explanation, the petitioner stated that the safety for the ticket room in the Depot is not up to the mark and that certain trays for storage of tickets were empty since 1990. According to him, the incumbent from whom he was to take charge did not entrust the entire stock of the tickets and he is said to have taken the charge on as is where is basis, on the instructions issued by the Depot Manager. This part of the contention of the petitioner was not appreciated at all. There is no whisper in the report of the Enquiry Officer or in the impugned order about the averment of the petitioner that the state of affairs that are remaining as such from 1990 onwards. Further, it was not even mentioned that the petitioner was given charge of the lost or unaccounted tickets also by his previous incumbent. There is no allegation that the petitioner has issued or sold the tickets to the Conductors or that the tickets have been found used in any of the services run by the Corporation. Identical situation was considered by this Court in Ch.P.Reddy Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad[1]. It was held that unless the person who is supposed to be in-charge of the tickets is found to have sold or used the tickets, he cannot be made to pay the value thereof. It was observed that it is only the stationary charges of the unaccounted or lost tickets, that can be recovered from the employees. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 27.09.2000, is set aside. Since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition, he shall be entitled to be extended the notional benefit of counting the service from the date of removal to the date of attaining the age of superannuation for the purpose of computation of the retirement benefits. However, he shall not be entitled for any back wages. The petitioner shall also be liable to pay stationary charges for the lost tickets. The retirement benefits of the petitioner shall be calculated and released to him duly withholding the stationary charges for the lost tickets, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 22.12.2010. kdl [1] 2000(5) ALD 93