JUDGMENT : The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Gajuvaka Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1979. On 17.03.2002, he was conducting a city service on Route No.65. A check was effected, and a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner framing two charges. The first was that the petitioner did not observe the rule ‘issue and start at TIC point’ and the second was that he collected Rs.10/- from a passenger and returned Rs.2/- instead of Rs.2.50 ps., and did not issue the ticket. The petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that the passenger was in a drunken condition and did not pay any fare at all. It was also stated that the checking officials themselves found him to be intoxicated and the passenger was taken to the nearby police station where a penalty of Rs.15/- and regular fare of Rs.7.50 ps., was collected and the ticket was issued. 2. The 2nd respondent was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and ordered departmental enquiry. An enquiry report was submitted on 24.05.2002, holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 16.07.2002, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The departmental remedies of appeal and review were not fruitful. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and was tried as I.D.No.98 of 2007. Through award, dated 11.02.2009, the Labour Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Smt. Dyumani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is inconsistent and even the checking officials were not clear as to their version. She contends that, on the one hand, the alleged statement of the drunken passenger was taken on its face value and, on the other hand, not only the very person was produced before the police station, but also the fare and fine were collected, and ticket was issued. She submits that the Enquiry Officer observed at one place that the allegation of the petitioner that the passenger was in a drunken condition cannot be accepted and at the end of the report, he stated that the intoxicated condition of the passenger cannot be taken advantage of, by the Conductor. She submits that the Enquiry Officer observed at one place that the allegation of the petitioner that the passenger was in a drunken condition cannot be accepted and at the end of the report, he stated that the intoxicated condition of the passenger cannot be taken advantage of, by the Conductor. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner rendered unblemished service since 1979 and he was removed from service without any basis. 4. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority and the Labour Court agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He submits that except making an allegation that the passenger was in a drunken condition, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to disprove the charges framed against him. 5. The two charges framed against the petitioner read as under: 1. “For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ at TIC point. 2. For having collected an amount of Rs.10/- from one passenger and tendered back an amount of Rs.2/-instead of Rs.2.50 ps. towards change due and failed to issue ticket bearing No.576/426742 worth of Rs.2.50 ps. E.1 and 253/327421 worth of Rs.5/- C.1 to the said passenger who boarded the bus at Gangavaram and bound for Old Bus Station (Ex.stages 4/3 to 13), while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP 9Z 5007 on route No.60 on 17.03.2002.” 6. The first charge is formal and technical in nature and the gravity is only in Charge No.2. If one carefully reads Charge No.2, there is any amount of inconsistency and it was not framed properly. The allegation against the petitioner is that he collected the fare from a passenger and did not issue ticket. However, reference is made to the number of two tickets with denominations Rs.5/- and Rs.2.50 ps. respectively, without even mentioning that those two tickets were issued by the checking staff. One can gather an impression that the tickets were issued by the petitioner himself. If that be so, the whole process becomes redundant. This however is an aspect, which is purely technical. 7. The consistent version of the petitioner was that the passenger, who is found without ticket, was in a drunken condition. This is supported by certain acts that have emanated from the checking staff themselves. If that be so, the whole process becomes redundant. This however is an aspect, which is purely technical. 7. The consistent version of the petitioner was that the passenger, who is found without ticket, was in a drunken condition. This is supported by certain acts that have emanated from the checking staff themselves. If it was a simple case of a passenger having not been issued a ticket even after the fare was collected, the only course for the checking staff would have been, to issue ticket to the passenger and to book case against the Conductor, duly complying with the formalities. In the instant case, the checking staff themselves have taken the said passenger to a local police station. That signifies his condition. It was with the intervention of the police that they were able to recover the fare, as well as the fine of Rs.15/- and thereupon ticket was issued to him. 8. In case the passenger had paid the fare and the Conductor was guilty of not issuing the ticket, there was no occasion for the checking officials or for that matter, to police to collect fare, much less the fine. The very fact that fine was collected from a passenger would prove that he traveled in the bus without paying fare. It is rather unfortunate that the authorities at various levels, viz., the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority and Labour Court, ignored this important aspect and the petitioner was kept out of service for the past eight years. 9. A perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer reveals that he was not clear in his mind, as to whether the passenger in question was in drunken condition, or not. In the body of the report, he observed that the passenger was not in drunken condition. In the concluding portion, however, he stated that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the drunken condition of the passenger. 10. The necessity for this Court to undertake the discussion in the preceding paragraphs is to demonstrate that the Labour Court also did not apply its mind to certain vital aspects. The scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the award of the Labour Court is very limited. 10. The necessity for this Court to undertake the discussion in the preceding paragraphs is to demonstrate that the Labour Court also did not apply its mind to certain vital aspects. The scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the award of the Labour Court is very limited. All the same, an award, which is patently perverse, cannot be permitted to remain and the employee cannot be made to suffer. This Court is of the view that at the most the petitioner can be said to have been negligent in collecting the fare from the passenger. Even if the latter was in drunken condition, he ought to have either made him to get down or to take him to the nearby police station. It appears that he was in the process, but the check took place in the meanwhile. Further, in these days, when the Government is taking every possible step to promote the sale of intoxicants to the maximum, a passenger being found intoxicated is not something extraordinary. In a way, he and others similar to him are the actual sources of income to the Government. This contention of the view that interests of justice would be met, if the petitioner is denied of back wages and other monetary benefits. 11. The Writ Petition is allowed and the order of removal, dated 18.05.1992, passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed in the appeal, review and in I.D.No.98 of 2007, is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with attendant benefits, but without back wages. He shall be entitled to the continuity of service, but not to the monetary benefit that accrue to him on account of fixation of pay. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.