IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Dated this the third day of December, 2010. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy W.P.No. 8047 of 2001 Between: The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. ..Petitioners And R.V. Bhaskar and another ..Respondents PSR, J. W.P.No. 8047 of 2001 O r d e r: This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No. 96 of 1998. For the sake of convenience the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner joined as conductor in APSRTC in 1989. On 30—09—1996 while the petitioner was conducting bus bearing No. AP-9Z-3785 on route Dharmavaram – Tadipatri, the checking authorities surprised the bus and found five passengers without tickets. On a report submitted by the Checking Officials, the management framed the following charge against the petitioner: “For having collected the fare from five passengers, who are travelling from Dharmavaram to Gotlur ex-stages Nos.17 to 16 at the boarding point, itself, at Rs.2-00 each and failed to issue tickets to them, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (vi)(a) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1963”. 3. According to the petitioner, he submitted explanation to the aforementioned charge denying the allegations. However, after conducting due enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. According to the petitioner, the bus was running late; it was overcrowded; he was issuing tickets in the running bus and before he could complete issuance of tickets, the check was conducted. His explanation was not accepted and after due inquiry he was dismissed from service. 4. During the course of proceedings, the court below framed the following points for consideration: i. Whether the removal order passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tadipatri in proceedings No.02/95 (66)/96-TDP dated:4—2—1997 is justified? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any reinstatement into service with continuity of service, with back wages and other attendant benefits? iii. To what relief the petitioner is entitled for? 5. On a consideration of the entire material placed before it, the court below held that though there were some lapses on the part of the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate. However, as seen from the record, in this case, the petitioner was earlier removed from service for similar kind of irregularity. Still, the court below taken a lenient view in the matter and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, however without back-wages. It cannot be said, in this case, the petitioner deserves an order of reinstatement in view of his involvement in similar irregularity and suffering an order of removal from service earlaier. However, as it pertains to employment of a low paid employee, though the court below erroneously ordered for reinstatement, particularly without back- wages, at this stage, after this length of time of more than twelve years, it may not be desirable to allow the writ petition and again remove the petitioner from service, particularly in view of the fact that no back-wages are ordered to be paid to the petitioner. 6. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:03-12-2010. *BVS