L.N. Reddy, J.

1. The unsuccessful petitioner in WP No. 16867 of 2006 filed this writ appeal. The appellant joined the service of A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1981. In the year 2002, he was working in the Sangareddy Depot of the Corporation, 2nd respondent herein. On 16.4.2002, he was operating a service from Patancheru to Ordinance Factory. A check was conducted en route. The 2nd respondent issued a charge-sheet to the appellant, alleging that he had issued used tickets to 4 or 5 passengers. The charges in relation thereto were framed. The appellant submitted his explanation denying the charges. According to him, he issued the correct tickets but some of the passengers may have shown the tickets that were purchased by them in the earlier trips. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd respondent ordered domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer held the charges as proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed the order, dated 6.11.2002 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The appellant filed ID No. 86 of 2003 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 27.12.2005, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Thereupon, the appellant filed WP No. 16876 of 2006. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 19.3.2014. Hence, this writ appeal.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had clean record spread over more than two decades and that the inaccurate and misleading statement made by some of the passengers, who may have avoided taking tickets, was treated as an act of misconduct and major penalty was imposed. He submits that even the Labour Court did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and still refused to grant relief. Learned Counsel submits that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge did not take into account the purport of the precedents cited before them by distinguishing them on totally irrelevant aspects.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the charges framed against the appellant are very grave in nature and once they were held proved, the inescapable conclusion is that the punishment of removal must be imposed. He further submits that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have dealt with every aspect in detail and did not find any basis to interfere with the order of removal. He contends that no interference is warranted with the concurrent findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge.

4. The appellant joined the service of the Corporation way back in the year 1981. In the year 2002, when he was conducting a bus, a check was effected. The charges framed against him read:

"1. For having failed to observe the rule Issue and Start, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

2. For having failed to issue valid tickets to one passenger found travelling from 6 to 8/9 Patancheru-Bhanur inspite of collecting requisite fare of Rs. 5/- you have re-issued the ticket bearing No. 492/9998504 of Rs. 5/- denomination which was already sold in 13-35 hrs trip at Stage No. 6 and accounted in the SR, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg. 28(xxiii) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

3. For having failed to issue valid tickets to a batch of two passengers found travelling from Patancheru-ODF, Ex-stages 6 to 8 in spite of collecting requisite fare of Rs. 8/- at the boarding point itself you have re-issued the ticket bearing No. 803/0655791 and 792 of Rs. 4/- denomination E2 which was already sold in 13-35 hrs trip at Stage No. 6 and accounted in the SR, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxiii) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

4. For having failed to issue valid tickets to two individual passengers found travelling from Patancheru to Nandigama Ex-stages 6 to 8 in spite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 8/- you have re-issued the tick