Judgment : P. Naveen Rao, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2012 in W.P. No. 13733 of 2001. Petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition is filed challenging the award of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 151 of 2000. 2. The Labour Court-I Hyderabad by award dated 12.2.2001 passed in I.D.No.151 of 2000 sets aside the order of removal dated 4.1.1995, modified the punishment of removal with that of postponement of two annual increments with cumulative effect, directed reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and attendant benefits. 3. The petitioner challenges the award on the ground that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of postponement of two annual increments with cumulative effect. It is also contended that having held that one charge is proved, the Labour Court, ought not to have granted continuity of service, full back wages and attendant benefits. 4. Learned single Judge of this Court upheld the decision of the Labour Court to the extent of findings recorded by the Labour Court on charges 1 and 2 as not proved and also modifying the punishment to that of postponement of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Learned single judge held that the further direction of the Labour Court awarding full back wages during the period he was out of service was erroneous. The learned single judge held that when the misconduct in charge No.3 is proved and punishment of stoppage of two annual increments is ordered, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded full back wages. However, in view of the peculiar facts of the case for the reasons recorded therein the learned single judge modified the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of full back wages to that of 50 % of the back wages. 5. Challenging the said decision of learned judge of this Court, this appeal is filed. The only contention that is urged is since charge no.3 is held proved by the Labour Court, awarding of the back wages, granting of continuity of service and attendant benefits is not in consonance with the proportionality principle. 6. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant corporation proceeded on the premise that principle of proportionality does not take in its component awarding of back wages, granting of continuity of service and attendant benefits. 7. 6. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant corporation proceeded on the premise that principle of proportionality does not take in its component awarding of back wages, granting of continuity of service and attendant benefits. 7. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent who is working as a conductor with the appellant corporation on the allegation that irregularities were noticed when a check was conducted on 2.3.1994 at about 9.30 AM while he was conducting bus on route 8-A between Charminar to Secunderabad Railway Station. Based on the check report, three charges were framed against him, which read as under : “1. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of 23 passengers (labourers) who have boarded your bus at Charminar and bound for liberty ex-stages 4 to 7/8, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having failed to observe the TIC point enroute and complete the ticket issues within one fare stage, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having closed all denomination in your S.R. No.5166205 against stage No.6, without completing the above ticket issues, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 8. Holding that all the three charges leveled against him were proved, petitioner was removed from service by order in proceedings dated 4.1.1995. This order of removal was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court –I, Hyderabad under Section 2-A (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act in I.D. No. 151 of 2000. Labour Court on detailed consideration of the matter and on evolution of the evidence on record held that charges 1 and 2 are not proved. Labour Court held that charge no.3 is proved. Labour Court held that allegation in charge no. 3 is not grave and as there was no allegation of misappropriation, punishment of removal from service is too excessive, shocking and disproportionate and therefore set asides the punishment of removal and substitutes the punishment to that of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Labour Court granted full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. 9. 3 is not grave and as there was no allegation of misappropriation, punishment of removal from service is too excessive, shocking and disproportionate and therefore set asides the punishment of removal and substitutes the punishment to that of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Labour Court granted full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. 9. On setting aside the order of removal, instead of remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority for imposing fresh punishment, it is competent for the Labour Court to modify the punishment to that of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The Labour Court found that allegation in charge No.3 is petty; that there was no allegation of misappropriation and therefore held that punishment of removal is disproportionately excessive. In J.K. SYNTHETICS LIMITED Vs. K.P. AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER (2007) 2 SCC 433 ), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “……. What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc. 20. But there are two exceptions. The first is where the Court sets aside the termination as a consequence of employee being exonerated or being found not guilty of the misconduct. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc. 20. But there are two exceptions. The first is where the Court sets aside the termination as a consequence of employee being exonerated or being found not guilty of the misconduct. Second is where the Court reaches a conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty misconduct, as a camouflage to get rid of the employee or victimize him, and the disproportionately excessive punishment is a result of such scheme or intention. In such cases, the principles relating to back wages, etc will be the same as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination.” (emphasis supplied) 10. Punishment of removal from service was imposed on the premise that three charges are proved. Since charges 1 & 2 are held not proved by Labour Court, punishment of removal from service is wholly unsustainable, moreover when allegation proved is trivial in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle of law enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that granting continuity of service is erroneous. 11. As with regard to payment of back wages, when once respondent is found to have been guilty of at-least of one charge and punishment is imposed and respondent did not discharge any service during the period, it is not just and proper to award full back wages. Thus, the learned single Judge of this Court, rightly held that awarding of full back wages is erroneous. Having held that awarding of full back wages was illegal, exercising equitable jurisdiction for the reasons assigned therein, learned single Judge has not ordered for recovery of the back wages already paid to the individual, since 50 % of the back wages were withdrawn in the year 2001 pursuant to interim directions of this Court and it is not just and equitable to order for recovery of the amounts paid more than 12 years back from respondent working as a conductor. The said order of learned single Judge is sin qua non of rendering justice in a given case. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no error in the decision of the learned single Judge. The said order of learned single Judge is sin qua non of rendering justice in a given case. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no error in the decision of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sequel to the same, WAMP No. 1635 OF 2013 stands closed. No costs.