P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER-APPELLANT was appointed as Conductor in A. P. State Road Transport Corporation and was working in Mancherial Depot. A check was conducted while he was conducting his bus on the route Gollette-I and Tandur-I-B on 24-11-1988 and detected certain cash and ticket irregularities. Accordingly a charge-memo was issued for having re-issued tickets to 9 passengers after collecting money which were already issued earlier. The enquiry officer who conducted domestic enquiry submitted his report that the charges are proved. Accepting the findings, the disciplinary authority removed him from service. The petitioner-Appellant raised an industrial dispute in I. D. No. 10667 of 1989 before the Industrial Tribunal challenging the proceedings unsuccessfully. Petitioner-Appellant again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition No. 11844 of 1992. Learned single Judge found that it is not a matter where he can interfere with the punishment as it is not disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence the writ appeal Writ Appeal No. 679 of 1997 :

( 2 ) PETITIONER-APPELLANT was working as Conductor in the second respondent-A. P. Stale Road Transport Corporation. While he was conducting Bus No. AAZ 2656 on the route Warangal-Sangam on 2-6-1990, a check was conducted and irregularities were noticed. A charge-memo was served on the petitioner-Appellant with five charges that he failed to observe the rules to complete ticket issue and close the S. R; failed to collect fair and issue tickets to four passengers; having collected the fair, failed to issue tickets to five passengers; apart from other irregularities. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report after conducting domestic enquiry and the disciplinary authority after considering the entire material including the explanation offered by the petitioner-Appellant removed him from service, since charges are proved. Petitioner-Appellant raised an Industrial dispute in I. D. No. 20 of 1990 in which the Industrial Tribunal confirmed the said punishment. Petitioner-Appellant challenged the same before learned single Judge in Writ Petition No/15644 of 1992. As the learned single Judge also did not interfere, this writ appeal.

( 3 ) LARGE number of cases, day in and day out, are filed resorting to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that a Bus Conductor of a Road Transport Corporation, or employee of a Public Sector Undertaking, or even a Government servant who has misappropriated small sum, when found that he is guilty, should be treated leniently while awarding punishment. This vexed question has been agitating this Court. Therefore, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us -Sri P. S. Mishra, C. J. is a member, felt the necessity of laying down certain guidelines to throw light for deciding such cases : in WANos. 125 and 27 of 1997 dated 11-9-1997: " (1) In a case where the bus fare is collected from a passenger by the bus conductor without issuing the ticket instantly, the magnitude of the amount involved shall not be treated as rendering any yardstick for determining the gravity of the mis-conduct. Such mis-conduct is a mis-conduct per se which is serious eventually leading to the cracking of the economic backbone of the Transport Corporation; (2) No lenient view need be taken in such cases. The punishment as may be provided in the Rules and Regulations of the Transport Corporation should be strictly construed without being influenced by the principles of punishment to be commensurate with the gravity of the mis-conduct; (3) The bus having been crowded much exceeding its capacity can also not be treated as rendering any justification in cases where the conductor has already collected the bus fare and has not issued the ticket; (4) Once fare is collected, the conductor is bound to issue the ticket. It is a d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document