( 1 ) THE entire emphasis in this writ petition is on the proposition that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, and it is prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with seniority, back wages and attendant benefits.

( 2 ) THE charges levelled against the petitioner were as follows: (A) That you have violated the rule issue and start which is a misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC employees Conduct Regulations 1963. (B) That you have reissued tickets bearing nos. 242/637024 to 637027 of Rs. 1. 50 denomination to four passengers who boarded the bus at Jammalamadugu and found alighting at Torrivemula ex-stage Nos. 1 to 4, which were already sold out and accounted at stage No. 4 (in down journey) which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct regulations 1963. (C) For having closed the tray numbers of all denominations upto stage No. 4 without completing the above ticket issues, which is a misconduct under regulation 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner offered that his cash be verified when the check was carried out in his bus, but the Inspectors did not do so. Verification of his cash would have been the conclusive factor for holding the petitioner liable for committing the alleged misconduct of reissuing the tickets, but by abstaining from verifying the cash, the Inspectors intentionally left the issue open to controversy. As regards the main issue that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed into service the provision of Section 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under"powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and national Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen: - Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. Provided that in any proceeding under this Section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter".

( 4 ) IT is evident from the second limb of the substantive clause of the above section that, it may, by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. It could therefore be safely said that the discretion is vested in the Court to examine whether the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this high Court in the case of M. R. Naidu v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, anantapur (1) 1994 (1) ALT NRC 37 in which it was held that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct under Charge No. 1. But there was no justification for the Labour court in refusing to grant any relief in exercise of the powers contained in Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said provision was incorporated