JUDGMENT : The petitioner seeks for a Writ of certiorari to set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam–respondent No.3 (the Tribunal, for short), dated 19-01-2005, which was published in the Gazette on 01-3-2005. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the APSRTC, for short) on 31-01-1987. A check was held on 28-4-2001 while the petitioner was working as Conductor of bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 6686 between stages 5 and 4. It was found that 4 passengers were carrying 10 rupee denomination tickets bearing Nos.739/073600, 739/073601, 739/073606 and 739/073611. The Department considered that the petitioner did not issue proper tickets to the passengers and did not observe the rule of issue of correct ticket to the passengers. A Departmental Enquiry was held. The petitioner was found guilty in the Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner was subsequently removed from service on 03-11-2000. Assailing the same, the petitioner raised I.D.No.85 of 2002 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the orders of removal from service holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner issued proper tickets to the passengers. He claimed that the tray of the petitioner did not even contain 10 rupee denomination tickets and that he issued a combination ticket of Rs.3-50 ps. And Rs.6-50 ps. to the passengers constituting Rs.10/- and that he did not commit any acts of misconduct. As many as 4 charges were levelled against the petitioner. The charges are: “1. For having failed to observe the rule Issue of correct tickets to the traveling passengers, while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP 10Z 6686 which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having issued Rs.10/- denomination tickets bearing Nos.739/073600, 739/073601, 739/073606 and 739/073611 of E.4 tickets which are not connected to your way bill No.161/00091 and S.R.No.9453792 dated 28-4-2000, while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP 10Z 6686 on route No.22 (Night service) on 28-4-2000, which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs. 1963. 3. 1963. 3. For having reissued the tickets of Rs.10/- denomination on 28-4-2000 on route No.22 (Night service) bearing Nos.739/073600 to 601 E.2 tickets which were already issued and accounted on 21-4-2000 on route No.644 of 13.15 hours service vide S.R.No.A1/9249600 and way bill No.1600087 at stage No.25 in the 16.50 hours while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP 9Z 4879 on route No.644 on 21-4-2000 which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having reissued the tickets of Rs.10/- denomination on 28-4-2000 while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP 9Z 4879 on route No.22 (Night service) bearing Nos.739/073606 and 739/073611, E.2 tickets which were already issued and accounted on 22-4-2000 on route No.644 of 5.15 hours service vide S.R.No.A1/9249738, Way Bill No.16100088 at Stage No.2 in the 6.35 hours return trip from Parawada to Collector Office, while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP 9Z 4879 on route No.644 on 22-4-2000 which constitutes misconduct in your part in terms of Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regd. 1963.” 4. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has given spot explanation that he has issued proper tickets to the passengers and that the passengers, who belonged to Orissa, did not understand the demand of the checking staff and produced some tickets, which were not the tickets issued by the petitioner. However, the charge memo shows that there was no spot explanation of the petitioner when the charge memo was served upon him. 5. Ex.M-1 is the document relied upon by the Enquiry Officer as well the Tribunal to hold that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Ex.M-1 is purported to be stated by the passengers. Two passengers claimed that the petitioner issued tickets bearing Nos.739/073600 and 739/073601 of 10 rupee denomination to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in accordance with the Rules, the addresses of the passengers are to be recorded when the statement of the passengers are recorded and that Ex.M-1 did not contain such addresses of the passengers. Ex.M-1 merely contained the signatures of the passengers. Added to it, below the statement of the passengers, the statement of the petitioner was recorded that he issued correct tickets to the passengers. 6. Ex.M-1 merely contained the signatures of the passengers. Added to it, below the statement of the passengers, the statement of the petitioner was recorded that he issued correct tickets to the passengers. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when a passenger claimed that he was issued incorrect tickets and where the petitioner contended that he issued correct tickets, the burden would be upon the employer to prove that the petitioner committed misconduct. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon STATE OF U.P. v. SAROJ KUMAR SINGA (2010) 2 SCC 772 ). Inter alia, it was observed that the Enquiry Officer is not a prosecutor but an arbiter, who shall examine the evidence dispassionately and arrive at the truth. It would appear to be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer took partisan attitude in holding that the case against the petitioner is made out. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon KhemChand v. State of Rajasthan (1985 (1) SLR 533 (Raj). A learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court observed in that case that in the event of statement against statement, the benefit of doubt should go to the employee. In the present case, it is not a case of oath against oath. While the petitioner examined himself before the Enquiry Officer and stated that he issued correct tickets, the Enquiry Officer failed to examine the passengers to whom the allegedly incorrect tickets were issued by the petitioner. Thus, the very charge has not been made out that the petitioner issued incorrect tickets to the passengers. I therefore consider that the finding of the Tribunal that the evidence proved the guilt of the petitioner is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 8. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is set aside. The removal of the petitioner from service consequently is also set aside. It is reported that the petitioner would have reached superannuation on 31-7-2013. If so, the petitioner shall be treated to be in service from the date of his removal from service and consequently, he shall be entitled to all attendant benefits including the back wages. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.