HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.478 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 09.08.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21508 of 2001, wherein and whereby the learned single Judge disposed of the said writ petition directing the Management of APSRTC to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but without backwages and attendant benefits and further, observed that the service during which the workman was kept out of employment shall also be taken into consideration only for the purpose of retiral benefits. The brief facts of the case may be stated as hereunder: - The first respondent herein joined the service of the APSRTC as Conductor on 23.08.1988. While so, a charge sheet, dated 06.05.1993 was issued to him with certain charges calling for his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the workman, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report holding the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, after completing the formalities, passed the order of removal of the workman from service by its order, dated 27.08.1993. Aggrieved thereby, the workman raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.118 of 1997 and the Labour Court dismissed the said I.D., thereby confirming the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority. Challenging the said order, the workman approached this Court and filed W.P.No.21508 of 2011 and the same was disposed of with the directions, as stated supra. As against the said order, the APSRTC filed the present Writ Appeal. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant- APSRTC contended that when the charge that the first respondent-workman having taken fare from 12 persons has not issued tickets to them was held to be proved by the enquiry officer, and was upheld by the Labour Court in the I.D., the learned Single Judge committed an error in disposing the said Writ petition with certain directions to APSRTC, instead the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-workman contended that the said bus was a moffussil service and as such, issuance of ticket can be completed within one fare stage and the workman was in the process of issuing the tickets when the check was conducted before the bus reached stage No.2 and as such, the learned single Judge has rightly directed the APSRTC to reinstate the workman into service. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the relevant material papers placed before this Court. It is evident that the bus, on which the workman was conducting as a Conductor, was a moffussil service, and that, as per the Regulations of the APSRTC, one fare stage is allowed for completing the issuance of tickets in moffussil services. In the instant case, admittedly, the bus has not crossed stage No.2., and even before it, the check was conducted and three charges were framed against the workman which are as under:- (1) You have failed to observe the rule “Issue and Start” which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (2) You have failed to issue tickets to 12 individuals and a batch of 5 passengers, who boarded your bus at Patancheru and bound for Velmala ex.stages 1 to 3, even though you have collected the requisite fare i.e., Rs.2.00 ps for each passenger at boarding point itself, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(vi)(a) and (x) of APSRTC Employees, Conduct Regulations, 1963. (3) You have failed to close S.R. against stage No.2 hence cross marked. Fare and stages taken as per conductor’s version since conductor is working without MID142, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.18(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The learned Single Judge rightly observed that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the workman. That apart, as the bus was a moffussil service, the workman was expected to complete the ticket issuance within one fare stage. However, the bus has not even reached stage No.2, even according to the management. Thus, the learned Single Judge taking into account all these facts and circumstances, has rightly directed the APSRTC to reinstate the workman into service. Nevertheless, having regard to the nature of misconduct alleged against the workman and the charges levelled against the workman were held to be proved in the enquiry, this Court is of the view that the workman is not entitled to the continuity of service. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned order as regards the reinstatement of the workman into service. The Management of APSRTC shall reinstate the workman into service within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the workman is not entitled to the benefit of continuity of service. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ___________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR​ 29th June 2011 DR