THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.2352 OF 2005 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 30.4.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.37/1999, in confirming the order of removal passed by the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner who was working as conductor, filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner was appointed as conductor on 17.4.1989 and his services were regularized on 1.8.1990. While so, when he was conducting the bus on 30.4.1998 on the route Kandukur to Kondepi, a cheque was conducted and it was alleged that he was found to have kept two tickets of Rs.2-50 denomination in loose condition after they were punched and it was also found that he issued tickets bearing no.196/128914 to 921 of Rs.3/- denomination to a batch of eight passengers without punching them. It was further found that he issued tickets bearing no.040/846732 to 737 of Rs.11/- denomination, to a batch of six passengers, without punching them. Accordingly, charges were framed and after conducting domestic enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 9.9.1998. After being unsuccessful in the departmental appeal and in the review, the petitioner raised I.D.No.37/1999 and by award dated 30.10.2004, the order of removal was confirmed by the Tribunal and hence the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has substantial service and there is no financial loss to the corporation and that the misconduct alleged, was by mistake. He further contended that before confirming the capital punishment of removal from service, the Tribunal has not considering the above circumstances and also failed to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the right perspective and he further submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding with regard to validity of the domestic enquiry and by simply noting the contents of the documents marked on behalf of both the sides and in a mechanical manner and without any reasons, passed the impugned award and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation supporting the impugned award sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. From the material on record, it could be seen that in the domestic enquiry conduct by the Corporation, it was categorically recorded that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and the Tribunal also confirmed the same by considering the explanation offered by the petitioner and the documentary evidence on record and this finding of fact, cannot be interfered with, without there being any material to show that evidence was not considered or that there is any perversity in appreciating the evidence. 7. Coming to the quantum of punishment, certain extenuating circumstances requires to be noticed. The fact remains that there is no revenue loss to the Corporation and the charges that are proved against the petitioner is that he issued tickets without punching them. The petitioner has substantial length of service and there is no material on record in the form any counter that he had indulged in any activities of similar nature in the past and on the other hand, the case of the petitioner in the writ affidavit is that he had clean service, which averment remained un-rebutted. Therefore, in my considered view, the charges that are proved are trivial in nature and for the said misconduct, removing the petitioner from service is shockingly disproportionate. 8. Further, based on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have exercised the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act and granted relief. 9. In similar circumstances, this court in W.P.No.21508/2001 dated 9.8.2010 held as under: 14. At the outset, it is to be noticed, except the present misconduct in question, there was no other misconduct alleged against the workman and he had put in five (5) yeas of clean service. . . . . .Even assuming that there was misconduct on the part of the workman, it was trivial and for such misconduct, removal from service is shockingly disproportionate. 15. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has committed an error in not exercising its discretionary powers vested under Section 11-A of the ID Act and granting relief to the Workman. . . . 10. Considering the above facts and circumstances and in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, the impugned award of the Tribunal in confirming the order of removal, is modified to that of reinstatement to the workmen afresh. Accordingly, the respondent – Corporation shall forthwith reinstate the petitioner afresh into service. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- -- 19—11—2010