THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.18454 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 1.7.1985 and subsequently his services were regularized, while so, when he was performing the service on bus bearing no.AP -10-Z-7688 from Yemmiganor to Hyderabad on 5.3.2002, a surprise check was conducted and in the said check, he was found to have issued tickets with TIMS machine to three passengers from whom he has already collected the requisite fare of Rs.131/- from a CAT card holder and Rs.292/- from a batch of two passengers who boarded the bus at Yemmiganur and bound for Hyderabad, ex-stages 1 to 7 and issued a white paper duly writing in ink pen Yemmiganur to Hyderabad CAT card no. 55946 fare Rs.131/- dated 5.3.2002 and another white paper duly endorsing Yemmiganur to Hyderabad, fare Rs.292/- tickets two, dated 5.3.2002 with his initials. Hence a detailed enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry officer submitted report dated 11.7.2002 holding the petitioner guilty of two charges viz., violation of rule ‘issue and start’ and for ticket irregularities. Based on the report of the enquiry officer and after serving show cause notice and receiving the explanation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent – Depot Manager by proceedings dated 25.7.2002 removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal to the 2nd respondent – Divisional Manager, who by proceeding dated 27.12.2002 partly allowed the appeal and thereby granted reinstatement afresh without continuity of service and without back wages. Not being satisfied with the same, the petitioner field review and the 1st respondent – Regional Manager by proceedings dated 5.5.2003 dismissed the review. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ affidavit and as submitted by his counsel is that the petitioner is having a long length of service of seventeen years and his record is satisfactory and further the amount collected by the petitioner was added in the TIMS and hence there was no attempt to defraud the revenue of the Corporation and further the TIMS machine was not working and, therefore, the petitioner tried to inform the same to the authorities, but the passengers forced him to start the bus as it was already late and the same was also deposed to by the passengers in the domestic enquiry. He contended that these factors have not been considered by the enquiry officer before finding the petitioner guilty. Hence he sought to grant all attendant benefits along with reinstatement ordered by the 2nd respondent. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the corporation, who also filed counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner issued white paper tickets by noting the amount and initialed them and if the TIMS machine was not working, he ought to have got rectified or informed the same to the authorities concerned, but he did not do so and had the check not been conducted, the petitioner would have pocketed the amount and in the enquiry the charges against the petitioner are proved and the same cannot be interfered with by this court under the writ jurisdiction and the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy of approaching to Labour Court, directly field the writ petition and the same is not at all maintainable and however the appellate authority by taking a lenient view, had granted reinstatement afresh and hence the same does not warrant any interference. With these submissions, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. From the material on record it could be seen that the petitioner was charged for violation of rule ‘issue and start’ and for ticket irregularities i.e., he had issued white paper tickets, without generating the tickets from TIMS machine and collected the fare amount from three passengers. The case of the petitioner is that the TIMS machine was jumping and though he tried to inform the same to the authorities, the passengers forced him to start the bus as it was already late and hence he was constrained to issue tickets on white papers. The enquiry officer based on the material on record found the petitioner guilty and this being a finding of fact recorded in the domestic enquiry, cannot be interfered with by this court under the writ jurisdiction in the absence of any contra evidence. 6. The petitioner is having a long length of service of seventeen years and as found by the appellate authority, he was having satisfactory record and the petitioner is one of the drivers who came forward to utilize TIMS machine in the initial stages. Further from the material on record it could be seen that the tickets amount was also added in the TIMS. The finding of the enquiry officer is that had the check been not conducted, the petitioner would have pocketed the amount. No doubt this finding cannot be interfered with, but considering the long length of service and above extenuating circumstances, I am of the view that he deserves to be extended some lenient consideration. 7. In fact, the petitioner ought to have approached the Labour Court, but he filed the writ petition in the year 2004 and this court admitted the same on 11.10.2004 and by the time of filing of the writ petition he was aged 52 years and by now he is aged 58 years i.e., almost at the verge of retirement. Hence, in view of these exceptional circumstances, driving the petitioner to avail alternative remedy would not be justifiable. 8. Hence, considering the above facts and the extenuating circumstances and in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner is granted continuity of service for the purpose of all the retrial benefits. 9. With the modification in the proceedings dated 27.12.2002 passed by the 2nd respondent – Divisional Manager, the writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 10—06—2010