JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1. The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4153 of 2004.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1 was subjected to departmental enquiry proceedings and an order of removal was passed on 31.12.1997. The respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.56 of 2001 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Labour Court has passed an award on 17.10.2003 setting aside the removal and directing the Corporation to reinstate the respondent No.1 into service without back wages but with continuity of service including notional increments and other attendant benefits. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, a writ petition was preferred and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.

3. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the a charge memo was issued on 29.03.1997 and after holding a departmental enquiry, the respondent No.1 was held guilty of the misconduct. The Labour Court has appreciated the entire evidence in the matter and after taking into account the entire evidence, has arrived at a conclusion that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer are perverse findings. In respect of the charges, the Labour Court has held that the respondent No.1, at the most, can be said to be negligent, however no misconduct was committed by him. The relevant portion of the award passed by the Labour Court dated 17.10.2003 reads as under:-

“Admittedly the seized tickets are 23 in number whereas the endorsement of (1) on some of the tickets would not suit the contention of the TTIs that they are due amounts. Each ticket is worth Rs.4.50 ps and if anybody purchases the ticket by paying Rs. 5/- the amount due will be 0.50 ps but cannot be Rs.1/-. The Jr. Law Officer contended that this is possible when the petitioner issued these tickets to a batch of two passengers by taking Rs.10/- note and making an endorsement that Rs. 1/- is due to be paid to the passengers. But if the endorsements on the back of some of the seized tickets is carefully looked into there is no such possibility of two passengers obtaining tickets and the petitioner making endorsement on one ticket. More over due amount can never be Rs.35/- or 0.35 paise, or Rs.85/- or paise 0.85 as contained on two of the tickets. Therefore, the suspicion of the TTIs is completely baseless. At times it is quite possible for the conductor while plucking the tickets that more number of tickets may come into his hand and thereby he is not at all at fault if he replaces them in the block of tickets the help of a rubber band. This is also clearly admitted by C.W.1 in his evidence before the court. Therefore, charge No.1 is completely baseless and the findings of the enquiry officer thereon are completely perverse and cannot be accepted. But the only finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner was negligent and thereby two of the tickets containing end numbers 122 and 123 are missing appears to be correct. Except that the finding of the enquiry officer that the seized tickets of Rs.4.50 deno. were already issued by the petitioner or that the petitioner kept them for the purpose of reissue has no basis and it is a mere suspicion A mere suspicion cannot be replaced with clear evidence.

Coming to charge No.2 it is complained that the petitioner made an alteration in the S.R. for the ticket block of Rs.4.50 ps deno., from stage Nos.10 to 2 when the bus traveled from Hadapahad to Nizamabad on 1.1.2000. A close perusal of S.R. marked as Ex.M.2 would reveal that the contention of the TTIs as well as the enquiry officer appears to be baseless and incorrect. Normally when the conductors are put on duty on the route buses the S.R. issued to them will be conveniently folded to put in a clip pad. Accordingly the S.R. in Ex.M.2 was f