JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.8.1987 of removal from passed by the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as UPSRTC). The petitioner was working as Clerk in Bagwise Section. A charge was levelled against the petitioner that he was not performing his duties with full honesty and devotion resulted in serious irregularities and scam of theft of tickets which were found in other bags in the Bagwise Section. The following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner: (i) to issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 24.8.1987 of the Regional Manager (Annexure-2) and order dated 28.01.1989 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Annexure-3); (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with full back and other emoluments to which the petitioner is entitled; (iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to which the petitioner be entitled under law; 3. It appears that under the order of this Court dated 24.08.1997, the petitioner an appeal which was decided by order dated 28.01.1999. Subsequently, an amendment application was filed by the petitioner challenging the validity and correctness of the appellate order and the prayer in the writ petition. 4. Sri R.K. Jaln; learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the duty of the petitioner was not in the Bagwise Section and he was not in any way involved in the theft of tickets. It is stated that the duty of the petitioner was in Bagwise section and he was working without any responsibility in that Section. 5. 4. Sri R.K. Jaln; learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the duty of the petitioner was not in the Bagwise Section and he was not in any way involved in the theft of tickets. It is stated that the duty of the petitioner was in Bagwise section and he was working without any responsibility in that Section. 5. The appellate court has given a finding of fact (Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit) that: (a) txchj flag cfdax fyfid xkft;kckn fMik ds cSax ckbZt vuqHkkx esa dk;Zjr FksA muds dk;Zdky ds nkSjku vfu;fear mnkgj.kkFkZ fnukad 3-8-82 dks izkr% Jh nsosUnz flag ifjpkyd us cSx lsD'ku ls cSx ls cSx ua0 9 izkIr fd;k ,oa mlds }kjk psd djus ij cSx esa nknjh dksV rFkk ts0 ds0 iwjh LVs'kuksa ds fVdV xfMM;ka ugha feyhA mDr fVdV Jh gfjvkse ifjpkyd ds futh cSx ls fVdV ua0 18783&18800 xkft;kckn & NijkSyk] 69180 &68200 fldsankckn fry] 14901 & 14997 :M+dh eqtQjuxj] 30340 & 30400 nknjh dksVcqy feysA blds vfrfjDr fVdV ua0 67001 & 67100 nknjh xkft;kckn] 88001 & 88300 cqyUn'kgj fldaizkckn 15510 & 15600 nknjh fry] 004141 & 004200 nknjh ts0 ds0 iqjh Jh pUnz iky ifjpkyd ds futh cSx ls izkIr gq;sA cSx ckbZt ls fVdVksa dk feyku djus ij fVdV ua0 30340 & 30400 nknjh dksVcqy 15510 & 15600 nknjh fry rFkk 004141 & 004200 nknjh ts0 ds iqjh ds fVdVh Jh nsosUnz dqekj ifjpkyd ds cSx ua0 9 ls pqjk;s x;s Fks tks Jh gfjvkse rFkk Jh pUnziky ifjpkydksa ds futh cSxksa ls cjken gq;sA blds vfrfjDr fVdVksa dk feyku djus ij nknh & xkft;kckn ds fVdV 67001 & 67100 Jh pUnziky ifjpkyd dks fnukad 13-7-82 dks cSax la0 62 esa bZ';wf;d fd;s x;s FksA cqyUn'kgj fldanzkckn ds fVdV la0 88201 ls 88300 Jh pUnziky ifjpkyd dks cSx ua0 48 esa bZ'kw fd;s x;s FksA (b) mi;qZDr fVdV ifjpkyd Jh pUnziky dks bZ';w fd;s x;s fdUrq cSx tek fd;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh bZ'kw dh xbZ frfFk;ksa ls fujh{k.k frfFk rd vFkkZr fnukad 3-8-82 rd Hkh mDr fVdV xfM+;ksa dks muds }kjk tek ugha djk;h xbZA fVdV ua0 18721 & 18800 xkft;kckn & NijkSyk ds fVdV cSx ua04 esa fnukad 2-8-82 dks Jh jts'k pUnz ifjpkyd dks bZ';w fd;s x;s Fks] ftuesa ls fVdV ua0 18783 & 18800 rd ds fVdV Jh gfjvkse ifjpkyd ds futh cSx ls cjken gq;sA :M+dh eqtQjuxj ds fVdV ua0 14901 & 15000 dh fVdV xM~Mh tks fMiks LVkd esa Fkh] pksjh djds Jh gfjvkse ifjpkyd us vius ikl j[kyh] ftuesa ls muds ryk'kh ysus ij fVdV ua0 14901 & 14977 rd gh fVdV cjken gq;s rFkk 'ks"k dk nq#Ik;ksx fd;k x;kA fldUnzkckn & fry ds fVdV ua0 68159 & 68200 ds fVdV fnukad 6-7-82 dks Jh pUnziky ifjpkyd dks cSax ua0 9 esa bZ'kq gq;s fdUrq vfHkys[k ns[kus ij Kkr gqvk fd cSx ckbZt esa bu fVdVksa dh izfo"Vh vafdr ugha dh xbZ vkSj u gh dksbZ fjiksVZ fVdVksa ds [kksus dh dh xbZA fnukad 3-8-82 dks Jh gfjvkse ifjpkyd dh ryk'kh ysus ij fVdV ua0 68185 & 68200 muls cjken gq;sA fnukad 25-7-82 dks fVdV ua0 14801 & 14900 ds fVdV bZ';w n'kkZ;s gSa blds mijkUr fnukad 1-8-82 dks fVdV ua0 14901 ls 15000 ds lhu ij 15001 & 15100 ds fVdV bZ';w n'kkZ fn;s x;sA fVdV LVkd jftLVj esa fVdV ua0 14901 ls 150000 dk C;kSjk ugha n'kkZ;k x;kA bl izdkj 100 fVdV ftudk /ku :i;s 485@& gksrk gS] dk xcu fd;k x;k fdUrq mDr pksjh dh dksbZ fjiksVZ muds }kjk ugha dh xbZA (c) cSx ckbZt dk dk;Z ykijokgh ,oa vfuf;fer <ax ls fd;k tkrk jgk tSlk fd fjdkMZ ls Kkr gksrk gS fd cSx ckbZt dbZ&dbZ fnuksa rd ugha fd;k x;k rFkk vf/kdrj bls ifjpkydksa }kjk gh fd;k tkrk jgkA bl izdkj czSx ckbt fcYdqy QthZ ,oa Hkze Mkyus okyk vfu;fer :Ik ls fd;k x;k ftlds dkj.k fVdVksa ,os ekxZ Ik=ksa dk lgh ys[kk tks[kk u j[kk x;kA QyLo:Ik fVdVksa dh pksjh o nq:i;ksx dks c<+kok feykA mDr ekeysa dh fjiksVZ izkIr gks tkus ij Jh txchj flag dks dk;kZy; vkns'k la0 9916 fnukad 23-10-82 ds }kjk Jh flag ch0lh0 dks fuyfEcr fd;k x;k] vkns'k la0 548 fnukad 28-1-83 ds }kjk muds fo:) py jgs vuq'kklfud ekeys ds vfUre fuLrkj.k ij dksbZ izHkko u iM+us dh 'krZ ij mUgsa vfUre izkfoluyh :i ls lsok esa cgky fd;k x;k mUgsa Ik=kad 152 fnukad 9-1-84 ds }kjk vkjksfir fd;k x;k ftldh tkap lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd xkft;kckn dks lkSaih xbZA Jh flag us yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds mRrj esa crk;k fd mudh M;wVh fVdV DyZd ij dHkh ugha jgh rFkk mUgsa ek= 15 fnu izkr% 10-00 cts ls 17-00 cts rd dk;Z fd;k gSa fVdV ua0 30340 & 30400] 15510 & 15600] 004141 & 004200 cSx ua0 9 ls pqjk;s tkus ds lEca/k esa mUgksaus Jh ckcw flag fyfid ls Kkr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k Fkk ml fnu mudk vodk'k Fkk mUgksaus ;g Hkh dgk fd fVdV la0 67001 & 67100 Jh pUnziky ifjpkyd dks bZ';w ugha fd;s x;s cSx la0 62 ij fnukad 13-7-82 dks fVdV la0 67101 ls 67300 rd bZ';w dh xbZ tks cSx ckbZt esa ntZ gS vkxs mUgksaus ;g Hkh dgk gS fd fVdV ua0 67001 & 67100 dh xMMh xqe gksus ij fVdV LVkd esa fVdV ua0 67301 & 67400 xqe n'kkZ;h vFkkZr bZ';w gh ugha dh xbZA fVdV la0 67301 & +67400 rd lhfj;y cSx ua0 9 ij pyk gSA rhu xMMh bZ';w Hkh ugha djus ls Li"V gS fd xMMh fVdV LVkd ls [kksbZ xbZ gSaA mUgksaus ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k fd fnukad 13-7-82 dks mudh M;wVh pSfdax ij FkhA fnukad 12-7-82 dks fVdV la0 88201 ls 88300 dks bZ';w djus okys ls Kkr fd;k tk;s fd mlus cSx ckbZt esa D;ksa ugha p<+k;kA fnukad 2-8-82 dks Jh jes'k pUnz ifjpkyd dks cSx ua0 4 ij bZ';w fd;s x;s ftuesa ls 18783&18800 Jh gfjvkse ifjpkyd ls fnukad 3-8-82 dks lqcg feys blesa os nks"kh ugha gSA Jh jes'k pUnz gh iq"V dj ldrs gSaA fVdV la0 14901&15000 LVkd ls gh bZ';w ugha fd;s x;s ftUgsa csSx ckbZt esa p<+kus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrkA fVdV la0 68159&68200 cSax ua0 9 ij Jh bUnziky ifjpkyd dks b';w ugha fd;s x;sA fVdV la0 68101&68200 Jh ?kjer flag ifjpkyd dks fnukad 25-3-82 dks bZ'kw fd;s x;s vUr esa mUgksus dgk fd mudh M;wVh cSx ckbZt ij ugha FkhA Jh flag dks cpko dk iw.kZ volj nsrs gq;s lk{kkRdkj dk volj iznku fd;k x;kA lk{kkRdkj ds le; fnukad 20-7-84 dks mUgksaus ek= Jh esgjk ofj"B LVs'ku izHkkjh ls iwNk fd mudh M;wVh 10-00 cts 17-00 cts rd jgrh FkhA ftlds mRrj esa Jh esgjk us mifLFkfr iaftdk dks ns[kus ds fy;s vf/kdkjh us tkap ds le; Jh flag dks yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds iw.kZ :Ik ls nks"kh ik;kA Jh flag ch0lh0 dks Ik=kad 7000 fnukad 15-6-87 ds }kjk dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fd;k x;k ftlds mRrj mUgksus iwoZ izsf"kr vius Li"Vhdj.k fy[k rF;ksa dks gh nksgjk;k gS Jh flag ch0 lh0 }kjk dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl ds mRrj esa fdUgha uohu rF;ksa dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k ftlls mu ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk de gks ldsA 6. The appellate court concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner are fully proved and are of serious in nature. The petitioner found guilty of the charges and the following order of punishment has been passed: izdj.k Ik=koyh esa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa] lk{;ksa rFkk lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd] xkft;kckn }kjk dh xbZ tkap dk Hkyh&Hkkafr v/;;u djus ds mijkUr esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaapk gwW fd Jh flag vius cpko esa dksbZ ,slk lk{; ,oa iq"B izek.k izLrqr ugha dj lds ftlls mu ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk de gks ldsA mu ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi fcuk fdlh 'kadk ,oa lUnsg ds iw.kZr;k fl) gksrs gSaA D;ksafd vkjksi xEHkhj gSA vr% Jh flag dks yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds fy;s nks"kh ikrk gwWaA Jh txchj flag cqfdax fyfid xkft;kckn dks fuyEcu dky dks 'ks"k osru jkT;rkr djrs gq;s lsok esa izFkd fjewo izxwe lfoaZl fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkrs gSSA {ks=h; izcU/kd xkft;kcknA 7. It is evident from the above that the first prayer of the petitioner for directing and Issuing a mandamus in the appeal, no longer survives as appeal has been decided and the petitioner has challenged the appellate order in the amendment application. The counsel for the petitioner address this Court only on the question of quantum of punishment, that the charges of removal from service is highly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 8. In my opinion the appellate authority rightly came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature, hence, punishment of removal from service is not disproportionate. Moreover, the petitioner is aged about 50 years at the time of filing of the writ petition and has retired from service. 9. The question whether the Appellate Authority has given a wrong conclusion that the duty of the petitioner was in the Bagwise Section and that in fact he was involved In the Irregularities, illegalities in the scam in the Bagwise Section is a Section of fact which is to be adjudicated upon on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties and is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has already retired from service and no interim order has been passed on the question of reinstatement of the petitioner and payment of back wages cannot be ordered by this Court by stating into the shoes of the Industrial adjudicating authority constituted under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. The reliefs of reinstatement and back wages etc. can only be granted by a competent Labour Court/Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It may be mentioned here that the Labour Court constituted u/s 7 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has vide powers not only to look Into, and interfere in the quantum of punishment passed u/s 6(2A) of the U.P. industrial Disputes Act but also has power to re appreciate the conclusions reached by the Departmental enquiry and by the Appellate Authority and come to an independent finding that what has been concluded by the enquiry officer or Appellate Authority or the Disciplinary Authority is covered or not. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, no effective relief can be granted by this Court to the petitioner after 19 years of writ petition. 12. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is dismissed. Consequently the connected writ petitions are also accordingly dismissed.