ORDER :- The petitioner was employed as Conductor in the A.P.S.R T.C., in the year 1987. On 30.5.2003, he was conducting a bus on the route from Bhadrachalam to Pocharam. A check took place between stages 18 and 19. On noticing certain cash and ticket irregularities, the Corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 6.6.2003, framing 9 charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and not being satisfied with that, the respondent ordered domestic inquiry. A report was submitted, holding the charges against the petitioner proved. Through order dated 16.1.2004, the respondent removed the petitioner from service. Departmental appeal and review filed by the petitioner were rejected. Therefore, he filed I.D. No.89 of 2005, before the Labour Court, Warangal, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Through award dated 57.2007, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though several allegations were made against the petitioner, that he failed to issue tickets, the Corporation did not examine the concerned passengers during domestic inquiry, and still, the Labour Court did not interfere in the matter. He contends that the checking team had bore grudge against the petitioner, and the same is evident from the fact that two successive checks were conducted within a distance of 1 or 2 K.ms. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the charges framed against the petitioner are very grave in nature, and apart from that, the petitioner had resorted to serious acts of misconduct, by tearing away the records of the checking team. He contends that the Labour Court had undertaken extensive discussion and furnished cogent reasons, as to why the petitioner shall not be entitled to any relief. 4. As many as nine charges were framed against the petitioner. They not only relate to the failure of the petitioner to issue tickets to the passengers from whom he collected the fare, but also as regards collection of a sum of Rs.240/-, for transporting 12 bags of rice, and not issuing tickets to the owner thereof. Another charge is in relation to the forcible confiscation of tickets, as well as the statement of passengers from the hands of Traveling Ticket Inspectors, and tearing the same away, immediately after the check. It was also pointed out that the petitioner refused to acknowledge the charge memo. Another charge is in relation to the forcible confiscation of tickets, as well as the statement of passengers from the hands of Traveling Ticket Inspectors, and tearing the same away, immediately after the check. It was also pointed out that the petitioner refused to acknowledge the charge memo. The Labour Court has taken all these aspects into account, and found that the conduct of the petitioner was reprehensible. 5. The Labour Court has also taken into account the fact that, consistently the passengers have stated, at the spot, as to the manner in which the petitioner collected the fare, but did not issue the tickets. Hardly any explanation was forthcoming, as to why the petitioner did not issue luggage tickets for transporting 12 bags of rice, which he permitted from stages 1 to 26, having collected a sum of Rs.240/-. Not only the number of passengers and the amount involved are on a higher magnitude, but also the conduct of the petitioner was despicable. He had become law unto himself, and had tom away the record, prepared by the checking party. The petitioner· does not deserve any sympathy, much less any relief, under law. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.