HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2011 Between: Marisetty Vasu S/o Ganapathi Naidu ………….Appellant AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC and one another ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, challenging the direction issued by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition. The appellant herein was appointed as conductor in the year 1991 in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. When he was conducting bus bearing No. 6062 on 19.6.2000, on the route Kanchi to Tirumala, a check was exercised by the Travelling Ticket Inspector of Regional Enforcement Squad, Tirupathi, at Stage N. 1 of Tirumala and the checking officials alleged certain cash and ticket irregularities against the appellant and he was issued with charge sheet dated 26.6.2000. The appellant submitted his explanation on 29.6.2000 denying the charges levelled against him. It is stated that without considering the explanation submitted, the first respondent ordered for enquiry and after completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved and the first respondent passed order dated 6.9.2000 removing the appellant from service. The appellate and revisional authorities confirmed the order of removal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant raised an industrial dispute vide I.D.No. 83 of 2001 and the Labour Court by order-dated 03.02.2004 dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned award directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Conductor, but without continuity of service and without back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition ought to have granted continuity of service with backwages. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the Conductor does not issue tickets to the passengers who travel from Tirupathi to Tirumala and they have to purchase the tickets from the counter at Tirupathi itself. Therefore, the duty of the Conductor is only to verify whether the passengers who boarded the bus possess appropriate tickets or not. The learned Single Judge observed that the Corporation has not produced passengers, either during the course of departmental enquiry or before the Labour Court, who were found travelling in the bus at the time of check, to prove that the tickets in their possession were issued by the Conductor. In those circumstances, the learned Single Judge observed that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is very harsh and directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Conductor, but without continuity of service and without back wages. Hence, ends of justice would be met if we direct the first respondent to reinstate the appellant into service as Conductor with continuity of service. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part and the order dated 25.6.2010 passed by the learned Single is modified to the extent of considering the continuity of service between the date of removal till the date of reinstatement only for the purpose calculating the terminal benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 27.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.