Judgment :- The petitioner Transport Corporation has challenged an order of the first respondent Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 20.4.2004, rejecting the Approval Petition. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. .3. The second respondent was on duty as a Conductor on 2. 1995. When a bus belonging to the petitioner Corporation and bearing Registration No.TN63 N 022 was being plied between Muraiyur and Puduvayal, two checking officials intercepted and found that there were 101 passengers inside the bus. Since the bus was engaged on contract basis, 60 passengers should have been allowed; but, 50 passengers were found in excess. Under the circumstances, a report was given. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued. The second respondent tendered explanation. All procedural formalities were followed. Following an enquiry made, the Enquiry Officer found that he has attempted to misappropriate Rs.390/- for 50 passengers who were found in excess. Following the same, representations were called for, and an order for removal from service was passed. The order was placed for approval before the first respondent who, after looking into the materials, took a decision that it is not a fit case where approval could be given, and he rejected the same. Under such circumstances, the Transport Corporation has brought forth this petition before this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of the order of rejection made by the first respondent, would reveal that though the punishment of removal from service was given, the Transport Corporation when it issued the charge memo, did not refer to any Rule, but has proceeded with the disciplinary action; that apart from that, what was placed before the Tribunal was only the report of the Enquiry Office, and under such circumstances, the order of dismissal could not be approved. The learned Counsel would further add that the first respondent Tribunal should have approved the same for the reason that in the instant case, it is not in controversy that the second respondent was on duty during the relevant time and date; that an inspection was also made by the Checking Officials; that there were 110 passengers found inside the bus; that it was also a contract carriage, and hence, 50 passengers were found in excess; that under the circumstances, charges were framed since he had no explanation to offer how 50 passengers in excess came to be there; that a reading of the charge memo would clearly reveal that he has allowed 50 passengers more and no tickets have been issued, and he has not collected the fare; but, it was his intention to collect the same from them at the time when they were to get down and thus, it was an attempted misappropriation and to cause loss to the Corporation; that the said charge on enquiry, was also proved; that the reasons adduced by the Tribunal for not approving the same, cannot stand; that even a reading of the charge memo would clearly reveal that the particular provision under which the action was taken, was also mentioned therein; and that under the circumstances, the order of the first respondent has got to be quashed, and the order of removal from service be restored. .5. .5. Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent would submit that in the instant case, the bus was being plied on contract basis; that it is true that there were 110 passengers at the time when checking was made; that it is seen from the explanation given, and is also an admitted fact that the fare for the contract trip was actually paid to the management by the party, who took it on contract, and no instructions were given to him that how many passengers should be allowed, and when the contract was entered into, it was agreed that it would be only for the purpose of marriage of one of the close relations of a Member of Legislative Assembly; that it is not the case of the management that there was any collection made, or any misappropriation; but the passengers were allowed to get in and there was attempted misappropriation alleging that he would have collected the same at the time when the excess passengers were to get down from the bus; that in such circumstances, there was no basis for such an apprehension; that the entire charge memo was issued, and the enquiry was also proceeded only on such apprehension and presumption by the management and nothing more, and hence, the Tribunal was perfectly correct in not approving the order of dismissal, which finding has got to be sustained. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. It is not in controversy that the bus belonging to the petitioner Transport Corporation, was being plied in between Muraiyur and Puduvayal on 2. 1995, on contract basis. It is also not in controversy that at the time of checking, 110 passengers were found, and thus, it was found in excess of 50 passengers. It is not the case of the Corporation that any money was collected from any one of the passengers. It is an admitted position that for the contract of the bus, the entire fare on contract basis was paid to the management also. What was all found was that 110 passengers were found in the bus at the time of checking, and thus, there were 50 passengers in excess. When the charge memo is looked into, the said factual position is also made clear. What was all found was that 110 passengers were found in the bus at the time of checking, and thus, there were 50 passengers in excess. When the charge memo is looked into, the said factual position is also made clear. In such circumstances, there was no collection from any of those passengers, and apart from that, there was no misappropriation also. It can be well stated that the charge memo was issued on the presumption that the second respondent Conductor would have collected fare from those passengers at the time when they were to get down. Not even one witness was examined to the effect that there was any word from the mouth of the Conductor getting assurance from the passengers that they were to make any payment, and thus, it was only on the basis of apprehension that the second respondent Conductor would have made collection of the fare and would have taken also. That apprehension, in the opinion of this Court, was thoroughly not based on any evidence. .8. In the instant case, what was all found was that 50 passengers were found in excess. Now, the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent is that it was on contract basis; that the Conductor was not instructed by the management that exceeding 60, others should not be allowed, and under the circumstances, these things will not stand even for a moment. The word "conduct" as found in "Conductor", in its connotation would mean that the Conductor should act in such a way that he should allow only the necessary number of passengers in the bus, and if it is a stage carriage, he has to issue tickets. If it is on contract basis, he should not allow anybody in excess. It is also an admitted position that there were 50 passengers found in excess; but, at the same time, there was neither collection nor misappropriation. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the major punishment of dismissal from service could be meted out. It can be stated that the punishment given, is found to be excessive and unreasonable. 9. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the major punishment of dismissal from service could be meted out. It can be stated that the punishment given, is found to be excessive and unreasonable. 9. Taking into consideration what was found was that he has actually allowed 50 passengers in excess at that time, this Court is of the view that to that extent, the department has proved its case. This Court is able to see that he has not exercised proper care and has also not done duty properly. Accordingly, to that extent, the punishment could be given. This Court is of the view that the order of dismissal from service has got to be set aside, and the second respondent has got to be reinstated from the date of this order. Accordingly, it is set aside, and reinstatement is ordered. At the same time, he is not entitled for back wages from the commencement of the departmental proceedings till 13-12-2007, and that would be sufficient in the opinion of this Court. But, at the same time, the continuity of service should not be disturbed. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs are closed.