THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.26632 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner joined in the service of the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1987 as conductor and his services were regularized in the year 1988 and while so, on 22.6.1999 when he was conducting the bus on the route Pulimaddi to Nandyal, the bus was subjected to check and it was found that he violated the rule ‘issue and start’ and further reissued two tickets, which were already issued and thus he failed to issue valid tickets to the individual passengers. In the domestic enquiry, the said charges were proved and based on the enquiry report and after affording the petitioner an opportunity, the respondent – Corporation passed orders of termination on 14.10.1999 and after unsuccessfully availing the departmental remedy of appeal and review, he raised I.D.No.102/2002 under Section 2(A)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Tribunal by award dated 30.07.2002 held that the charges against the petitioner are proved, but however taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner for taking lenient view and in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, directed the respondent – Corporation to issue fresh appointment by reducing his pay to three annual increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the capacity of the bus is 40, but the bus is loaded with 71 passengers and after issuing the tickets, he loudly shouted asking the passengers to take tickets, and as the bus was overloaded, the two passengers taking advantage of the same, did not take tickets and they showed the tickets which were on the floor and the said passengers also deposed that they did not take tickets, but the enquiry officer without considering this evidence on record, found him guilty and the same cannot be sustained and sought for reinstatement with all the attendant benefits. 4. The counsel appearing for the Corporation supporting the impugned action and as the charges are proved and as the Tribunal taking a lenient view, granted reinstatement, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. From the material on record, it could be seen that the charges against the petitioner are that he violated the rule ‘issue and start’, reissued the tickets which were already issued in the earlier trip and thus failed to issue valid tickets. Though the petitioner contended that there are about 71 passengers and that the bus was over loaded and taking the advantage of the same, two passengers did not take tickets, the enquiry officer, based on the material found that the bus was having capacity of 53 passengers in all and the statement of the passenger also indicated that they boarded the bus at Pulimaddi to go to Nandyal and tendered the ticket fare to the petitioner at boarding point and the petitioner issued these tickets. The said statement was attested by the petitioner without any protest and further the confiscated tickets were accounted on the up-journey on 22.6.1999 and thus it is prove that the petitioner failed to issue valid tickets and violated the rule ‘issue and start’. The findings of the enquiry officer were upheld by the Tribunal on re- appreciation of the entire evidence and hence the same cannot be interfered with in the absence of any contra evidence. 6. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 and as per the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, he is nearing the age of superannuation. Further the Tribunal though granted reinstatement afresh, directed the respondent – Corporation to reduce his pay to three annual increments with cumulative effect. This part of the direction, in my considered view, cannot be sustained, since it amounts to double punishment, which is contrary to law. Having regard to this fact and also the length of service and in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be granted continuity of service. 7. Accordingly the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the petitioner is granted reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- 04—06—2010