Judgment : The writ petitioner is appointed as a conductor on contractual basis during February 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (fort short “APSRTC). While he was conducting one of the buses of the Corporation plying between Srisailam to Dhone on 22.02.2011, a check was conducted which revealed certain cash and ticket irregularities committed by the writ petitioner. It is alleged that the writ petitioner has collected a fare of Rs.230/- from a batch of two passengers travelling from Srisailam to Kurnool, but issued tickets for Rs.210/- only. Thus, a shortage of Rs.20/- has been committed. Similarly, the petitioner has collected fare of Rs.115/- from a lady passenger travelling from Srisailam to Kurnool, but he has issued ticket worth Rs.105/- only. Thus, a shortage of Rs.10/- has been committed. In view of these serious irregularities, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the Ticket Travelling Inspectors, who have detected the irregularities, have been examined. Based upon the findings, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.05.2011 calling for his objections on Enquiry Report. The petitioner filed his objections on 11.05.2011, and thereafter, a show cause notice was drawn on 26.05.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his services be not terminated for his proven misconduct. The petitioner filed his explanation thereto on 05.06.2011. On 20.06.2011, the Depot Manager, Dhone, passed a detailed order terminating the services of the writ petitioner for his proven misconduct. The writ petitioner has then appealed to the Appellate authority, who turned down his appeal on 15.12.2011. Since a review petition would lie to the Regional Manager, the writ petitioner preferred such a Review Petition to the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, in response to which the Regional Manager passed detailed orders on 18.02.2012. The plea of the writ petitioner that since he was new to the express services and because of proximate closeness of the colour of the tickets of the value of Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- denominations, he erroneously issued Rs.10/- denomination ticket instead of Rs.20/- denomination ticket, and, in fact, he has issued tickets to all the passengers and never intended to defraud the organization. But, however, taking a lenient view, the order of termination passed by the Depot Manager, Dhone, was modified as an engagement afresh as contractual conductor. But, however, taking a lenient view, the order of termination passed by the Depot Manager, Dhone, was modified as an engagement afresh as contractual conductor. As a measure of punishment, a sum of Rs.3,000/- was ordered to be recovered from his salary after reengagement. Questioning the validity of these proceedings, the above writ petition is instituted. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, and Sri K.V. Subba Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the respondents. It is contended by Sri S.M. Subhan that the writ petitioner was recruited as a contractual conductor only during February 2010, and he was new to conduct express bus services. While undertaking the return trip from Srisailam to Dhone on the fateful day, inadvertently the petitioner has committed an error of issuing Rs.10/- denomination tickets to three passengers, who were traveling from Srisailam to Kurnool, instead of issuing them Rs.20/- denomination tickets. It is therefore contended that for a bona fide mistake committed by the petitioner, a very serious and harsh punishment of termination has been inflicted by the Depot Manager, and while entertaining the Review Petition, the Regional Manager has forfeited the benefit of past service of the petitioner, and simultaneously imposed a punishment of recovery of Rs.3,000/- from his wages upon reengagement. Even this punishment imposed by the Regional Manager is quite disproportionate, and hence, it is contended that the order of Regional Manager should be interfered with by this Court, by substituting the same as an order of reinstatement of the petitioner back into service. Per contra, Sri K.V. Subba Reddy would contend that the Regional Manager has taken a very lenient view of the matter, and hence the order of the Regional Manager does not call for interference by this Court. The Regional Manager is satisfied that the petitioner perhaps may have been genuinely confused between Rs.20/- denomination tickets with that of Rs.10/- denomination tickets, therefore, a lenient view was taken by him in the matter. If the facts are properly analyzed, the act of the writ petitioner in issuing tickets, which are short by Rs.10/-in value, to each of the three passengers, who were travelling from Srisailam to Kurnool, would amount to bring in Rs.30/-shortfall to the revenue of the Corporation. The writ petitioner has in fact collected Rs.30/-from the three passengers, therefore, the possibility of the Corporation suffering loss of Rs.30/-towards its income is established. The writ petitioner has in fact collected Rs.30/-from the three passengers, therefore, the possibility of the Corporation suffering loss of Rs.30/-towards its income is established. The Depot Manager, in fact, followed the procedure strictly in accordance with and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. I am therefore not in a position to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders of the Regional Manager warrant any interference at all. In my opinion, the Regional Manager has exercised the discretion very appropriately. He has also modulated the disciplinary power by imposing punishment of recovery of Rs.3,000/-, which is 100 times to the loss of revenue of Rs.30/- caused by the writ petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the exercise of power by the Regional Manager. The fact remains that the writ petitioner has put in service before they were terminated on 20.06.2011, and he remained out of employment till 18.02.2012 the date on which he was ordered to be engaged afresh by the Regional Manager, but, however, prior to the incident he has put in one year of service. The ends of justice would be better subserved if that one year service put in by the writ petitioner between February 2010 till he was put off duty on 07.03.2011, pursuant to the detection of the irregularities committed by him, is taken into account and consideration along with the services rendered by the petitioner, pursuant to the orders passed by the Regional Manager on 18.02.2012, for the purpose of regularizing the services of the writ petitioner as a conductor, as and when any such occasion would arise. However, the services in between 07.03.2011 to the date of reengagement pursuant to the orders of the Regional Manager on 18.02.2012 shall not enure to the benefit of the writ petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.