IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1776 of 2005 Between: V. Srinivasulu … Appellant And The Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur & another. … Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri G. Ravi Mohan Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Labour Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt. W.V.S. Rajeshwari This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1776 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Gulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is filed against order, dated 29.07.2005, in Writ Petition No.17044 of 1999, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to exercise his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the Writ Petition by observing that the Labour Court has not committed any error in dismissing the I.D. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a conductor and attached to Banaganapalli Bus Depot in Kurnool District. While he was conducting the bus on the route Banaganapalli to Kurnool on 24.09.1996, a check was exercised and a charge memo was issued on the spot, wherein two charges were framed, namely; that he collected the requisite fare of Rs.4.50p from 17 passengers and issued unconnected tickets (used tickets) and that he had stolen the ticket block No.281/574500 of Rs.4.50p denomination issued to another conductor. Both the charges were proved and the appellant was removed from service, which was accepted by both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the removal order, the appellant approached the Labour Court by way of I.D.No.317 of 1997. The Labour Court, by its award dated 22.02.1999 dismissed the I.D. by confirming the removal order. Questioning the said award, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.17044 of 1999, which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by confirming the award of the Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant. At the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the extreme punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge ought to have taken a lenient view and afforded an opportunity to the appellant. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Collecting fare and issuing used tickets to the passengers is grave misconduct. When once the appellant has collected the fare from the passengers, he ought to have issued correct tickets, but he has not done so and issued tickets, which were used and also unconnected. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. GULAM MOHAMMED, J SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 17.08.2011 ES