ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“To issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI to quash the impugned order No.PA/19(45)/2016-HZ dt.07.06.2016 in so far as denying the past service and other consequential benefits as unjust and arbitrary and consequently, the petitioner pray this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the reinstatement as a fresh as that of reinstatement with continuity of services, attendant benefits and back wages along with all consequential benefits.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner joined the respondents’ Corporation as a conductor in the year 1997 under the displaced employees’ quota on regular basis and working under the control of the 4th respondent Depot. While the petitioner was conducting the bus service of the 3rd respondent Depot on 29.07.2015 from Srisailam to JBS, Secunderabad, the bus was checked three (03) times and the checking authorities could not detect any irregularities in the work of the petitioner, as such, did not issue any charge memo on the spot. However, the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 29.07.2015 after (10) days from the date of the checking with charges relating to ticket irregularities by way of reissuance causing loss of revenue to the Corporation. Despite the petitioner’s explanation, the respondents without considering the same, suspended the petitioner from service on 17.08.2015 and issued a charge sheet dated 17.08.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the tickets were accounted for at the place where they were issued to him and at no point of time he was informed about the tickets having multiple punching. During the course of enquiry, one Sri Narasimlu, TTI, was examined in support of the charges, wherein he admitted that the charges were framed against the petitioner on suspicious grounds, but not on facts. It was also contended that another TTI Sri A. Santosh was examined, wherein he admitted that the framed allegations of re-issue on the ground that the tickets were having more punches. It was also admitted by the witnesses that they have not followed the checking rules in issuing the charge memo on the spot check and other mandatory procedures were not followed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the enquiry report was submitted with the findings that there was the loss of revenue to the Corporation and as there was more number of punching on the tickets, there was every possibility/chance of re-issuing the tickets and the report was issued and later, upheld by Higher Authorities in a mechanical manner as the charges were considered proved on the mere chance of re-issuance of tickets, but should be based on clear evidence and findings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner filed a review petition under Regulation 30 of the APSRTC, C.C & A Regulation 1967 and the 2nd respondent vide its proceedings dated 07.06.2016 concluded that the re-issuance of tickets is not proved, whereas due to punching the tickets multiple times, it indicates the intention for the scope of re-issue. While holding the same, the 2nd respondent ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner as afresh as a measure of punishment. And such punishment is neither supported by regulations nor by law and due to the same, the petitioner is drawing a fresh conductor salary. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioner and contended that on 29.07.2015, while the petitioner was discharging his duties, his bus was checked and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected, based on the above allegations and the report of the TTI’s of RES/GR, the petitioner was placed under suspension and issued Charge Sheet on 17.08.2015 for the following charges:

i) “For h