THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5282 of 2009 Dated:05.10.2010 Between: B.Narayana .. Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gadwal Depot, Mahabubnagar District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5282 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 02.11.1989 in Gadwal Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., and was regularized in 1990. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging that he failed to issue tickets to 11 passengers and failed to collect the fare of Rs.2.25 ps. each from the passengers. After conducting departmental enquiry, the Depot Manger passed orders, dated 18.05.1992, directing the removal of the petitioner from the service. The petitioner exhausted the departmental remedies and thereafter filed I.D.No.249 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. Through award, dated 31.03.1998, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service afresh. He has since been reinstated and it is stated that his services were regularized. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Labour Court denied him the benefit of service and back wages though a specific finding was recorded with the effect that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Had it been a case here where the petitioner collected the fare from 11 passengers and failed to issue tickets, things would have been different altogether. The evidence on record discloses that the petitioner did not collect the fare from the passengers and when he was in the process of issuing tickets, the check took place. The Labour Court took into account, the fact that the checking officials themselves collected the fare and issued tickets. Therefore, the failure on the part of the petitioner, if at all, was to follow the rule of ‘issue and check’. However, no financial loss was caused to the Corporation. For such a small dereliction, the benefit of ten years of precious service rendered by the petitioner cannot be ignored. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, and attendant benefits, but without back wages. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to be paid any arrears that may have accrued to him up to the date of the re-determination of pay due to continuity of service. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05.10.2010 KH