THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.15541 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is the workman, who worked as conductor in the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation prior to his termination. Aggrieved by the award dated 23.2.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.87/1998, in confirming the order of removal passed by the Corporation, the present writ petition is filed. 3. When the petitioner was on duty on 24.12.1995, on bus no.1536 on the route Beerelly – Rangapur, a check was exercised, and it is alleged that cash and ticket irregularities were found and accordingly a charge memo was issued and charge sheet was served on the petitioner with three charges and the petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the said charges and not being satisfied with the same, domestic enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were found proved and after issuing final show cause notice, he was terminated from service. Aggrieved by the same, he raised I.D.No.87/1988 and by award dated 23.2.2001, it ended in rejection. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Tribunal below failed to appreciate the material evidence on record. He contended that the workman on the date of check has specifically denied that he collected the fare from the passengers and to confirm the charge, the checking officials ought to have checked the cash bag. But they did not do so. He stated that the signatures of the passengers were obtained on blank papers and thereafter, their statement was written to suit the allegations of the checking officials. By producing Xerox copies of the said statement, the learned counsel sought to demonstrate the said contention. He contended that non-checking of the cash bag, has become susceptible to an enormity of doubt. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court reported in S.PULLA REDDY v. DEPOT MANAGER[1]. The charge that is proved against the petitioner is the violation of the rule ‘issue and start’ and for this, imposing the punishment of removal from service, is gross disproportionate and this court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with the punishment awarded and modify the same. In support of this contention, he relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in P.RAJANNA v. LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI[2]. With these contentions, he sought to set aside the impugned award and direct the respondent – Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation supporting the impugned award, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The three charges against the petitioner are that (i) violation the rule issue and start, (ii) failure to issue tickets to two passengers, even after collecting Rs.4/- at the boarding point itself instead of Rs.2.25 each and found alighting without tickets at Beerelly, having boarded the bus at Katapuram, ex-stages 24 to 26 and (iii) failure to issue tickets to two passengers, even after collecting the requisite fare at the boarding point itself, having boarded the bus at Thadwai and bound for Rangapuram, ex-stages 21 to 27. 7. From the above, the main charge against the petitioner is that he collected fare from four passengers and failed to issue tickets. The contention of the petitioner is that he did not collect fare and also did not issue tickets. In the spot explanation also, he stated that he did not collect fare from the said passengers. When the petitioners was vehemently contending that he did not collect fare from the said passengers, then in order to confirm the charge, the checking officials ought to have checked the cash bag and non-checking of the cash bag, has become susceptible to an enormity of doubt, as laid down by a single Judge of this court in S.Pulla Reddy’s case (1 supra). 8. The charge that is proved against the petitioner is that he violated the rule issue and start. The case of the petitioner is that he was suffering from Asthma and therefore, it lead to the present situation and, therefore, sought to show some lenient consideration, as his entire family is dependent on him and they are suffering untold hardship. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned award is modified to the effect that the respondent – Corporation shall reinstate the petitioner into service afresh without any back wages and continuity of service. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ----------------------------- 23—09—2011 [1] 1997(2) ALD 558 [2] 2002(1) ALD 64 (DB)