HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3 OF 2003 ORDER: Petitioner is working as Conductor in the Parkal Depot of APSRTC. On 15-10-1996, when he was conducting the bus on the route, a check was caused at stage No.10. Charge sheet was issued to him on 24-10-1996, alleging that the petitioner did not follow the rule of ‘issue and start’; he collected fare of Rs.2/- from one passenger, who boarded at stage No.9/10, destined to stage No.10, but did not issue ticket; he collected Rs.3/- instead of Rs.3-50 ps. from another passenger, who boarded at Pangidipalli and was scheduled to travel up to Raghavapur, and that no ticket was issued. The 4th charge was that he collected Rs.2-50 ps. each from two passengers, who boarded at Tekumatla, but did not issue tickets. 2. In his explanation, the petitioner stated that the passenger, who boarded at Pangidipalli refused to pay Rs.3-50 ps. as charge, on the ground that on the previous day, he traveled that distance by paying only Rs.3/- and that even while the discussion was going on, the check took place. He further stated that he was about to issue tickets to all the four passengers, after collecting the balance of 50 ps. from one of the passengers, and the check has taken place. 3. Not satisfied with the explanation, the respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. The respondent passed an order dated 22-02- 1997, directing removal of the petitioner from service. Appeal filed by him was dismissed on 12-11-1997. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Warangal, by filing I.D. No.124 of 1999. Through its award, dated 19-12-2001, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service as a fresh conductor. It denied the continuity of service and back wages. Petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of relief of back wages and continuity of service. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The 1st charge framed against the petitioner was almost formal in nature. Charges 2, 3 and 4 are to the effect that the petitioner collected fare from four passengers, but failed to issue tickets. If those charges are true, the punishment imposed against the petitioner, cannot be said to be unreasonable. 6. Charge No.3 itself discloses that the petitioner collected only Rs.3/- as against Rs.3-50 ps. from a passenger and failed to issue ticket. The explanation of the petitioner was that the said passenger entered into argument as to the correctness of the fare, and that in turn caused delay in issuing tickets to other two passengers also. The fact that the discussion ensued between the passengers and the petitioner, was not disputed by the respondent. Though a conductor is under obligation to issue tickets to every passenger, whoever has tendered the fare, it is not uncommon that he would collect the fares from the group of passengers who board at the same stage, and start issuing tickets and thereby to save time, particularly, when the passengers are not many. 7. The Labour Court has undertaken extensive discussion and held that the lapse on the part of the petitioner cannot be treated as an act of misconduct. Having said so, it has directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh conductor. Once the lapse on the part of the petitioner is treated as minor, he ought not to have been denied the benefit of past service rendered by him, at least for the limited purpose of determination of pay scale. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, modifying the award passed by the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioner shall be reinstated; with continuity of service which shall be limited for the purpose of reckoning the increments. He shall be not entitled to the back wages or any monetary benefits till now on account of the re-determination. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 22, 2010. KTL