Judgment This writ petition is preferred challenging the correctness and validity of the award passed on 4.1.1995 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in ID No. 83 of 1993. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short `APSRTC’) on 15.11.1986 and he was attached to Palakonda Depot in Srikakulam District. On 28.3.1993, he was conducting the bus plying between Palakonda to Srikakulam. The bus was inspected at Srikakulam by two Travelling Ticket Inspectors (TTIs). At the time of check, there were 27 passengers in the bus. The TTIs have seized the tickets carried by the passengers. 23 passengers were issued Rs.8/-denomination tickets while one passenger is carrying Rs.7/-denomination ticket. One of the passengers has just then got off the bus. The remaining two passengers did not possess any ticket. They stated that they have boarded the bus at Palakonda and they have tendered Rs.51/-to the conductor who returned them Rs.35/-after accounting for fare of Rs.8/-each. However, the conductor has failed to issue them any ticket. The checking officials have noticed that the Statistical Return (SR) was closed at Stage No.6 by the petitioner. Therefore, it was alleged that the petitioner inspite of collecting Rs.16/-towards fare from the two passengers has failed to issue them tickets. Essentially on that score and also for the rest of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, he was subjected to disciplinary enquiry. Based upon the findings of the domestic tribunal, he has been inflicted with the punishment of removal from service by the Depot Manager on 3.11.1992. It is against this order, the petitioner invoked the provision available under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raised the industrial dispute. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was conducted strictly in terms of the rule position prevailing in the APSRTC and the petitioner has been afforded a fair chance to defend himself. Upon consideration of the material on record, it has found the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer to be reasonable and hence the order of punishment of termination imposed by the Depot Manager as correct and sustainable in law. Upon consideration of the material on record, it has found the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer to be reasonable and hence the order of punishment of termination imposed by the Depot Manager as correct and sustainable in law. Heard Sri P. Appa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar, Standing Counsel for the APSRTC Sri Appa Rao, learned counsel would strenuously submit that the petitioner was not at all guilty of the principal charge leveled against him and he has been unjustly made victim of circumstances. Since the petitioner was not willing to toe the line suggested by the TTI, he was inflicted with the grave punishment of removal from service. The explanation offered by the petitioner has never been considered either by the disciplinary authority or by the Labour Court. Above all, contends Sri Appa Rao, a grave punishment has been imposed for an insignificant misconduct attributed to the petitioner. Even otherwise proceeds the argument that the petitioner has suffered enough for the past twenty years and therefore his case demands necessary compassion to be shown to be ordered for reinstatement into service. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The graveman of the charge laid against the petitioner in Charge No.2 was that inspite of collecting the fare from two passengers at the rate of Rs.8/-, he has not issued them the tickets and thus he has misappropriated the income/revenue of the APSRTC unjustly. The explanation of the petitioner was that he has issued tickets to all the passengers who have paid him the fare. But, unfortunately, just before the bus entered the bus complex at Srikakulam, one of the passengers, who accompanied the other two passengers has alighted at the Government Hospital stage. The two passengers by mistake have forgotten to collect their respective tickets from the said man. Since they were caught by the TTIs without possessing any ticket, they bluffed and gave a wrong statement that the petitioner has not issued tickets to them. Let me analyse the facts that were noticed and brought on record. It is not in doubt that the petitioner has made entries in the Statistical Register (SR) noting down therein the number of tickets which he sold denomination wise. Let me analyse the facts that were noticed and brought on record. It is not in doubt that the petitioner has made entries in the Statistical Register (SR) noting down therein the number of tickets which he sold denomination wise. Each conductor would be issued with an SR in which he is supposed to enter the tickets sold by him denomination wise and stage wise and also enter last digits of the ticket numbers thus sold. Instructions were passed on to the APSRTC to all conductors to issue tickets first, enter those particulars in the SR and then start the onward journey. These instructions are popularly called `Issue and Start’ instructions. According to the SR for the relevant trip, the petitioner has shown 24 tickets of Rs.8/-denomination as sold. There is also one ticket sold for Rs.7/-denomination. When the TTIs checked the vehicle, they have seized 23 tickets of Rs.8/-denomination from the passengers of the bus. They have also seized Rs.7/-deonomination ticket from one of the passengers. Thus, they could retrieve 24 tickets in all from the passengers found in the bus. It is stated that one of the passengers just then alighted at the Government Hospital stage. Therefore, it is assumed that he was the 24th passenger to whom the writ petitioner has sold RS.8/-denomination ticket. Thus, the 24 tickets which the writ petitioner has sold of Rs.8/-denomination have been completely accounted for. The explanation of the petitioner that he issued these two passengers also tickets of Rs.8/-denomination and by mistake the passenger who alighted at the Government Hospital stage carried away those two tickets were to be true and correct, then, the SR should have reflected total sale of tickets as 26, but not 24. Therefore, the theory propounded by the writ petitioner to account for the missing two tickets of Rs.8/-denomination does not fit in, in view of the entry made by him in the SR that he sold only 24 tickets of Rs.8/-denomination. As was already noticed supra, all the 24 tickets issued by him of Rs.8/-denomination have been faithfully accounted for including the ticket of the passenger who alighted at the Government Hospital Stage. The 25th passenger carried Rs.7/-denomination ticket. Therefore, the two passengers found in the bus are not issued the tickets in spite of collecting fare from them. As was already noticed supra, all the 24 tickets issued by him of Rs.8/-denomination have been faithfully accounted for including the ticket of the passenger who alighted at the Government Hospital Stage. The 25th passenger carried Rs.7/-denomination ticket. Therefore, the two passengers found in the bus are not issued the tickets in spite of collecting fare from them. It is the case of those two passengers that they tendered Rs.51/-to the petitioner and that the petitioner returned to them Rs.35/-after defraying Rs.16/-towards their fare. It was also never the case of the petitioner that he has not collected the fare from these two passengers. His case was that he collected the fare and issued them tickets. Therefore, burden lies on the petitioner to demonstrate as to how as against 26 tickets that should have been sold of Rs.8/-denomination he entered the figures of only 24 tickets of Rs.8/-denomination and their numbers in the SR. The entries in the SR has faithfully tallied insofar as the tickets retrieved by the TTIs from the passengers. There is no difficulty in that regard. The unsold tickets are in tact in the ticket tray. This is, therefore, a clear case where the petitioner having collected the necessary fare from the two passengers who boarded the bus at Palakonda and who traveled upto Srikakulam has not issued them the tickets. The only inference that can be drawn, in these circumstances, was instead of showing Rs.16/-collected by the petitioner from the two passengers towards the revenue of the corporation, he has shown the revenue of the corporation less by Rs.16/-. A public sector undertaking or for that matter even a private enterprise would survive only on the revenue it generates in undertaking transportation services. Every conductor is required to be faithful and honest. He is being paid salary and allowances commensurate to the nature of duties performed by him. Therefore, he is not supposed to misappropriate the revenue generated by ferrying the passengers or freight by the buses operated by the corporation and part of income generated by the corporation in such services cannot be diverted into the private pockets. The cumulative effect of such intolerable conduct would lead to a stage where a corporation would collapse as a loss making entity and that would be to the peril of the society at large. The cumulative effect of such intolerable conduct would lead to a stage where a corporation would collapse as a loss making entity and that would be to the peril of the society at large. APSRTC runs its operations on some of the routes which are not considered as economically viable, for, it owes an obligation to provide for transportation services to the general public at large and to those of nonviable routes as well. APSRTC being a public sector undertaking, one of the principal aims it serves was to provide for basic transportation facilities to the general public, even if it accounts for loss making. APSRTC plans its operations in such a way that the small losses sustained by it by carrying operations in uneconomical routes would be made good while plying buses on otherwise economically sound routes. Though profit making may not be prime motto of APSRTC, but, profit making greatly helps in improved and quality services to be provided for the good of the society. Contrary to the scheme of planning of the APSRTC, if the APSRTC conductors start pilfering a portion of the income of the APSRTC, the corporation is bound to end up as a loss making entity and a day would not be too far away for the corporation to collapse all due to unbearable financial burden. Men with doubtful integrity cannot be suffered in public employment. There is no room for doubtful characters to hover around. However, much, Sri Appa Rao would plead that the petitioner had paid enough of a penalty by suffering untold miseries for the past 20 years, I am not shaken a bit to concede his request. The problems that were faced by the petitioner were of self inflicted ones. They take longer time than 20 years for healing. I, therefore, do not consider that this is a fit case where the discretion could be used to exercise for substituting a lesser punishment than that of removal from service for misappropriation of funds of the corporation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.