THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL No. 724 OF 2011 DATED:17-11-2011 Between: G. Madhava Reddy … Appellant And The Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-I, rep., by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL No. 724 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order, dated 21-07-2009 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25841 of 2002. 2. The appellant was a Conductor with the APSRTC. He was served with a charge sheet, dated 07-10-1988 on the following charges: “1. For having collected Rs.27.00 from a passenger having boarded your bus at IBS and bound for Bantaram ex-stages 2 to 24 and you have issued low denomination tickets bearing No.026/000351 to 000352 to Rs.11.00 E.2 to the above passenger instead of issuing tickets worth of Rs.26.50 to the above passenger is misconduct on your part under Reg.28 (xxv) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having higher denomination ticket blocks worth of Rs.20.00 with you yet you have issued of Rs.11.00 E.2 tickets to the above passenger which is misconduct on your part under Regulation 28 (vi) (a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees, (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 3. The domestic enquiry found the appellant guilty of the charges and he was removed from service. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was numbered as I.D No. 44 of 2001 and the Industrial Tribunal – I, Hyderabad by its award, dated 25-01-2002 confirmed the order of termination. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. 6. The learned single Judge found that the material on record placed in the domestic enquiry as well as before the Industrial Tribunal was sufficient to uphold the guilt of the appellant. However, with regard to the quantum of punishment, the learned Writ Appeal No. 724 of 2011 Page 1 of 2 single Judge noted that the appellant had been working as a conductor with the respondent – Corporation since 1992 and his services were terminated in 1999. Consequently, he was out of service for about 10 years by the time judgment was delivered. 7. Taking these factors into consideration, the learned single Judge observed that the punishment of termination from service may be a bit harsh. Accordingly, the learned single Judge exercised his discretion and directed that the appellant may be given a fresh appointment. The learned single Judge declined to grant any back wages or continuity of service to the appellant. 8. According to learned counsel for the appellant, his client is entitled to reinstatement and not a fresh appointment. 9. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and find that the charges against the appellant pertain to financial irregularity and particularly, the second charge is of a serious nature. Under these circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge. 10. There is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 17-11-2011 ks Writ Appeal No. 724 of 2011 Page 2 of 2