THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.986 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1996 and his services were regularized on 01-01-1998. He was posted as one of the drivers to operate Garuda service between Hyderabad and Bangalore on 25-04-2009. A check was conducted, after the Bus reached Bangalore. It was found that 20 drill bits of 20 kg each were loaded in the bus, and as against luggage fare of Rs.768/-, tickets were issued only for a sum of Rs.120/-. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 26-04-2009. The petitioner submitted explanation, stating that he has only resumed the bus half-way- through, and earlier, the bus was driven by two drivers, by name Abdullah and V.K. Kumar, and that he did not permit the loading of the luggage, at all. An enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted a report, holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Taking the same into account, the Depot Manager, Karimnagar-I, the 3rd respondent herein, passed an order dated 18-08-2009, removing the petitioner from service. Appeal preferred by him was rejected on 28-08-2009. The Regional Manager, the 2nd respondent, partly allowed the review filed by the petitioner by directing his appointment as a fresh candidate, by denying all other benefits. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of other reliefs to him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The allegation against the petitioner is that he permitted loading of 20 drill bits and issued tickets only for a sum of Rs.120/-, as against Rs.768/-. The petitioner flatly denied the charge and stated that he did not permit the loading of the drill bits, and he resumed the bus only at Chippalapoor, on the way from Hyderabad to Bangalore. There is no denial of this fact. The finding recorded by the enquiry officer is some-what equivocal. It is to the effect that the petitioner has unauthorisedly allowed and brought unaccompanied luggage from Hyderabad to Bangalore. It needs to be observed that the loading can be permitted only by the driver, who was on the seat, at Hyderabad. Admittedly, the petitioner was not the driver, on the seat at that place. Instead of proceeding against the actual person, who permitted the loading of the luggage and issuing inadequate tickets, the respondents have chosen to implicate the petitioner. The 2nd respondent made a clear observation to the effect that the conduct of the petitioner, for the past 12 years, was clean and unblemished. Hence, he cannot be denied the benefit of such a service, on account of an unfounded allegation. At the same time, the petitioner ought to have been careful in verifying, whether the luggage was covered by proper tickets. This Court is of the view that denial of back wages would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, modifying the order dated 23-11-2009, passed by the Regional Manager, the 2nd respondent herein, to the effect that the petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of service and attendant benefits, but not back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06-12-2010. KO