Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The respondent was employed as a Conductor in Gajuwaka Depot of APSRTC in the year 1987. When he was conducting a bus, on Root No.22, a check was conducted on 24.08.2001, between stages 5 and 4. It was found that four passengers were holding tickets of Rs.10/- denominations, which are unconnected with the way bill and statistical report, issued to him. In other words, the respondent was said to have re-issued used tickets. A charge memo, dated 28.04.2004 was issued alleging the acts of misconduct. The respondent submitted an explanation and not finding the same to be acceptable, the second appellant ordered domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 04.08.2000, holding that four charges framed against the respondent are proved. Accepting the same, the second appellant passed an order, dated 03.11.2000 removing the respondent from service. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, being I.D.No.85 of 2002, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court passed a Nil award on 19.01.2005 and dismissed the I.D. Challenging the same, the respondent filed W.P.No.17517 of 2005. By the time the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the respondent attained the age of superannuation. Through order, dated 02.08.2013, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the award of the Tribunal, and consequently the order of removal. It was directed that the respondent shall be entitled to be in service from the date of removal till he attained the age of superannuation and that he shall be entitled to all attendant benefits as well as back wages. The said order is challenged in this writ appeal. Sri Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court categorically found that the tickets that were found from four passengers were, in fact, handled by the respondent about one week prior to the check. He submits that the same clearly establishes that the respondent issued the used tickets in respect of a different route and that there cannot be any better example of cash and ticket irregularities than this. He submits that the learned Single Judge was mainly impressed by the fact that the passengers from whom the incriminating tickets were recovered were not examined; for allowing the writ petition and that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He submits that the learned Single Judge was mainly impressed by the fact that the passengers from whom the incriminating tickets were recovered were not examined; for allowing the writ petition and that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He submits that the Labour Court happens to be the final authority on facts and that there is no justification for the learned Single Judge to hold that the charges against the respondent are not proved. Sri Subhan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal did not take into account, the fact that four passengers were from whom the tickets recovered, are from Orissa and not conversant with Telugu Language, and they have produced certain tickets, which were issued to them on previous occasions. He submits that the illegal acts resorted to by the passengers in producing unconnected tickets, cannot be the basis to impose the serious punishment of removal against the respondent. The charges framed against the respondent read as under: “1. For having failed to observe the rule Issue of correct tickets to the travelling 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. 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. 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.” From a perusal of this, it is evident that the tickets that were recovered from the four passengers, during the course of check, were totally unconnected with those kept at the disposal of the respondent for that route, on that day. It means that the respondent has issued totally unconnected tickets to the passengers. It is axiomatic that the respondent would be under obligation to remit only such amount as is recovered by issuing the tickets that are mentioned in the way bill and statistical report. If the unconnected tickets are issued to the passengers after collecting the fare, the amount naturally goes to the pocket of the conductor and not into the account of the Corporation. Issuance of used tickets is a very serous act of misconduct. It is worse than the one of failing to collect fare; or failing to issue tickets even after collecting fare. In a given case, failure to issue tickets after collecting the fare, can be attributed to the heavy rush in a bus or the conductor being in the process of being issuing tickets, when the check takes place. If a totally unconnected ticket is issued to a passenger, consciously, the intention on the part of the conductor becomes manifest. It only shows that he has a clear and meticulously thought over plan, to misappropriate the fare collected from the passengers. On the one hand, the passengers are cheated by issuing them fake tickets, and on the other hand, the Corporation is cheated through misappropriation of the collected fare. The checks are conducted almost as a sample and once in a while. Many a time, the irregularities that are noticed during the check, would represent a small fragment of the large scale irregularity. The checks are conducted almost as a sample and once in a while. Many a time, the irregularities that are noticed during the check, would represent a small fragment of the large scale irregularity. Though the amount involved during the check may appear to be small, if one takes into account such conduct during the course of discharge of duties of a conductor, it would be phenomenal. The plea of the respondent about the unconnected tickets being recovered from the passenger was totally inconsistent. On the one hand, he stated that the passengers cheated him, and on the other hand, he took the plea of their not being conversant with Telugu language, and have shown the tickets pertaining to the previous journey. He has absolutely no answer for the fact that the tickets recovered from the passengers were dealt with by him, few days earlier. The statistical reports and the way bills were made part of the record to demonstrate this aspect. The learned single Judge was mostly impressed by the fact that the passengers from whom the incriminating tickets were recovered, were not examined. The relevant portion reads as under: “…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…” The question as to whether a Conductor has indulged in any cash and ticket irregularities can be ascertained from the records as well as the statements prepared by the checking staff. The examination of the passengers from whom the objectionable tickets are recovered, howsoever useful it may be, cannot take place in many cases. The Buses cover various locations and passengers who travel in them, hail from totally different places. Ensuring their presence in the departmental enquiries is almost an impossible task. Obviously recognising this, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 ), held that the domestic enquiries especially in the cases pertaining to non-issuance of tickets by conductor cannot be subjected to strict and sophisticated rules of evidence. Ensuring their presence in the departmental enquiries is almost an impossible task. Obviously recognising this, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 ), held that the domestic enquiries especially in the cases pertaining to non-issuance of tickets by conductor cannot be subjected to strict and sophisticated rules of evidence. It was also observed that sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny by court, while absence of any evidence in support of the finding is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. In Civil Appeal No.1720 of 2002, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an enquiry does not get vitiated on account of failure to examine the passengers from whom the tickets were recovered or have travelled without tickets even after fare was paid by them. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rattan Singh’s case (1 supra) and Devendra Swamy v. KSRTC (2002) 9 SCC 644 ). In that view of the matter, the writ appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.