( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The appellant worked as a Conductor in a stage carriage service of the respondent Corporation. On 13-3-1982 he was found to have committed certain irregularities and in due course was charged for the following:1. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs. 40-60 ps. from a batch of 7 passengers but issued lower denomination tickets bearing Nos. GO6/ 606104 to 606110 of Rs. 1/- denomination worth Rs. 7/- to the said batch of passengers who boarded the bus at tadipatri and bound for Jammalamaduge ex. stage No. 25 to 7 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxv) of the A. P. S. RT. C. Employees Conduct Reg. , 1963. 2. For having closed the tray Nos. of all denominations in the S. R, upto stage No. 22 without completing the correct ticket issues which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of the APSRTC Employees conduct Reg. , 1963. 3. For having violated the rule issue and start which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of the APSRTC Employees Conduct reg. , 1963. In the domestic enquiry all the three charges were held to have been made out and a punishment of removal from service was imposed on the appellant herein. The industrial Tribunal found charge No. 1 proved and the other two charges negligible. It however, found no illegality and no reason to interfere with the punishment. Learned Single Judge has agreed with the tribunal that the first charge has been established and has also found no reason to interfere with the imposition of the punishment. We have apparently no reason, particularly when we are informed about the past conduct of the appellant, to find fault with either the judgment of the Labour court or that of the learned Single judge. Our attention however, has been drawn to a Bench decision of this court in v. G. Reddy v. The Chairman , Industrial tribunal -cum-Labour Court at Warangal (1) W. A. 213/92 dated 23-3- 1992 and the judgment of a learned Single Judge in p. Balachandra Reddy v. A. P. S. R. T. C. (2) 1994 (1) ALT 208, and it is brought to our notice that on a charge similar to the one as levelled against the appellant and found proved, it was held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Any stand to the contrary by this Bench will lead to a divergence of opinion with the opinion of the bench of the Court in W. A. 213/92 dated 23-3-1992 although the ratio applied in v. G. Reddy s case as well as by the learned single Judge in P. Balachandra Reddy s case is that the court has power to interfere with the punishment and order for adequate punishment which is in consonance with the proved charge, there can be some feeling of discrimination by the court if we do not follow the law laid down in the above judgments.

( 2 ) WE are inclined for the reasons aforementioned, to modify the punishment by withholding all backwages and all benefits attached to the service except that the ends of justice shall be by reinstatement of the appellant to serve the remaining period of service. In case, however, any repetition of the above is shown it shall be open to the competent authority to take suitable action. For the reasons aforementioned it is hereby ordered:1. that the period from the date of the imposition of punishment by the Corporation upto this day shall be treated as period of suspension without pay; 2. the appellant shall be reinstated forthwith but without backwages; 3. on retirement from service he shall be entitled to terminal benefits calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn and the status which he shall have at the time of the retirement; 4. the Corporation shall be free to impose any punishment upon the appellant if he is found to repeat the misconduct or indulge in any other misconduct.

( 3 ) THE appeal the Writ Petition are ordered accordingly.