ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, J. - The respondent herein was a conductor in the service of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 1-6-1994 while the respondent was on duty as a conductor in a passenger bus, the ticket examiner inspected the bus and found that out of seventy-six passengers travelling in the bus, sixty-eight persons alone had valid tickets, eight passengers were having tickets with them, but they were invalid tickets used previously. The ticket examiner took the statement of the eight passengers and the respondent was thereafter charge-sheeted and two charges were framed against him. The first charge was that the respondent had issued the invalid tickets to eight passengers and the second charge was for closing the tray of all denominations without issuing proper tickets to eight passengers. In the inquiry report, the respondent was found guilty of both the charges and the disciplinary authority ordered dismissal of the respondent from service. 2. The respondent referred the matter to the Labour Court, and the Labour Court held that Charge 1 was not proved. The Labour Court was of the view that eight passengers were allegedly travelling in the bus with invalid tickets by themselves might have committed some fraud and as they were not examined in the domestic inquiry it was not proved that the respondent was responsible for issuing the invalid tickets, and these passengers by themselves might have travelled with invalid tickets to avoid penalty. The Labour Court found that the respondent had discharged his duties in an irresponsible manner in the sense that he allowed eight passengers to travel in the bus without tickets. Ultimately, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was "shockingly disproportionate" and held that the respondent should have been visited with the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. The Labour Court was pleased to direct the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. 3. The appellant herein challenged the award passed by the Labour Court before the High Court and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine and the appellant pursued the matter before the Division Bench. The Division Bench also dismissed the writ petition and the respondent was thereafter reinstated in service on 13-12-2000. 3. The appellant herein challenged the award passed by the Labour Court before the High Court and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine and the appellant pursued the matter before the Division Bench. The Division Bench also dismissed the writ petition and the respondent was thereafter reinstated in service on 13-12-2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the present appeal was filed and by an interim order passed by this Court, the payment of back wages remain stayed. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent herein was served with notice at the SLP stage, but he had not chosen to appear before this Court. Under proviso to Rule 11 Order 16 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 there is sufficient service of notice in this case. The counsel for the appellant contended that the Labour Court was in error in observing that the passengers should be examined in the domestic inquiry as it is not feasible and practicable to examine the passengers who had given the statement at the initial stage. 5. It is pertinent to note that the ticket examiner was examined in the enquiry, and he deposed that eight passengers were found without valid tickets and that their statements were recorded. The respondent was responsible for laches in the discharge of his duties and the Labour Court itself found that there was irregularity in discharge of duty on the part of the respondent. In the circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the punishment imposed on the respondent was shockingly disproportionate. As the respondent has already been reinstated in service, we do not propose to reopen that matter. 6. However, we are of the view that the direction to pay full back wages for the entire period during which he was out of service is wholly unwarranted. It is proved that the respondent had not issued tickets to as many as eight passengers. The Labour Court was pleased to observe that there may not be any mala fides or misconduct on the part of the respondent, but the respondent, who had experience of 10 years of service, had allowed eight passengers to travel in the bus without issuing tickets and it shows serious negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent. In such cases direction to pay full back wages is not justifiable. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we modify the award of the Labour Court and direct that the respondent shall not be paid back wages for the period during which he was out of service. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.