JUDGMENT :- The petitioner is employed as Conductor in the Rajendranagar depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. While he was conducting an urban service on 23.11.2005 on route No.95P, check was effected. Alleging that the petitioner collected fare of Rs.16/- from a batch of four passengers and did not issue tickets till they alighted the bus, a charge sheet was issued and other related charges were also mentioned. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with that, the 2nd respondent appointed an inquiry officer. A report dated 24.05.2006 was filed by the inquiry officer, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. A second show cause notice dated 26.07.2006 was issued to the petitioner and after receiving the explanation dated 14.08.2006 submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 29.08.2006 directing removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner availed the departmental remedies of appeal and revision, but has not been successful. Thereafter, he filed I.D.No.49 of 2009 before the Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. Through an award dated 15.09.2009, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner appeared as a party-in-person. He contends that the charges framed against him are totally baseless and even after holding that the domestic enquiry was defective, the Labour Court did not grant any relief. He contends that none connected with the check were examined before the Labour Court and despite the same, the charge was held proved. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in all fairness to the petitioner, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry is defective and examined the matter afresh. He contends that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence at all and the version put forward by the Corporation was accepted. As many as five charges were framed against the petitioner. Out of them, the first one is grave and rest of them are either not serious or are trivial. The charges read as under: “1. He contends that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence at all and the version put forward by the Corporation was accepted. As many as five charges were framed against the petitioner. Out of them, the first one is grave and rest of them are either not serious or are trivial. The charges read as under: “1. For having failed to issue tickets despite having collected requisite fare of Rs.16/- from a batch of four (4) passengers who were found alighting from your bus without tickets at Puranapool who had boarded your bus at Bhavaninagar colony ex-stages 3/4 to 6/7 while you were conducting the bus No.AP 9z-7898 on route No.95-P dated 23-11-2005 which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations’ 1963. 2. For having refused to acknowledge the charge memo at the time of check from the checking officials which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28 (vii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations’ 1963. 3. For having refused to attest the passengers statement that was recorded in your presence at the time of check on 23-11-2005 while you were conducting the bus No.AP 9z-7898 on route No.95-P at stage No.6/7 which amounts to serious mis-conduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations’ 1963. 4. For having forcibly snatched the SR along with Passengers statement and attempted to tear the above said documents from the Checking Officials which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg. 28 (xxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations’ 1963. 5. For having lost the Rs.5/- denomination ticket block Bearing No.646/504300 to 399 (100) in your hand tray at the time of check which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28 (v) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations’ 1963. The petitioner denied the charges and a domestic enquiry was conducted. The charges were held proved and an order of removal was passed. In the I.D. filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court recorded a specific finding that the domestic enquiry is invalid. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court permitted the parties to adduce evidence. The Corporation examined M.Ws.1 and 2 and filed Exs.M.1 to M.21. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by the petitioner. In the disciplinary proceedings, basically it is for the employer or the management to prove the charges framed against an employee. The mere fact that the employee did not adduce any evidence does not become material. The Corporation examined M.Ws.1 and 2 and filed Exs.M.1 to M.21. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by the petitioner. In the disciplinary proceedings, basically it is for the employer or the management to prove the charges framed against an employee. The mere fact that the employee did not adduce any evidence does not become material. Further it would be mostly in the form of rebuttal evidence. Therefore, much would depend upon the strength of the evidence which the employer maintained. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he collected fare from a batch of four passengers and did not issue tickets. The best persons to speak about this would have been the passengers themselves. Recognising the difficulty in securing the presence of the passengers in departmental proceedings, courts virtually exempted the Corporation from that necessity. The other relevant evidence would be that of the checking officials themselves, notwithstanding the fact that they may be prone to stick to their version. In the case on hand, the Corporation did not choose to examine the checking officials. M.W.1 is the Controller and M.W.2 is the Typist. None of them are members of the checking team. The documentary evidence is nothing but the record of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The result is that there was no evidence worth its name, to prove the charges against the petitioner. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the order of removal passed against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent deserves to be set aside. Inasmuch as the writ petition is being allowed mostly on account of the failure of the respondents to adduce independent evidence, this Court is of the view that the relief of re-instatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages can be granted. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the Award dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Labour Court and the order dated 29.08.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent directing removal of the petitioner from service, are set aside. The Corporation shall re-instance the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages.