JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petitions are take up for hearing. 2. This Court has heard Sri K.Narsireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Wp.No.4999 of 2001 is filed by the Road Transport Corporation questioning the award dated 24.10.2000 passed in ID.No.179 of 1998 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, setting aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the charges, enquiry report and other documents. It is his contention that the award that is passed by the Labour Court is not correct. He tried to convince this Court that the Industrial Tribunal committed an error in holding that the Regional Manager, APSRTC has failed to file application under Order I Rule 1 CPC., to come on record and did not file vakalath or a rejoinder. He argues that permission of the Court is not necessary to file the rejoinder. Learned counsel submits that the findings of the lower Court including the granting of back wages and notional increments are not correct. It is his contention that the learned Judge of the labour Court went ahead with the pre-conceived notion and passed the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman on the other hand submits that even if this issue of the Regional Manager not appearing before the ID Court etc., is negatived, she submits that the available material is not enough for the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion and therefore, she submits that the lower Court did not commit any error in setting aside the enquiry report. She points out that the Travel Ticket Inspectors have failed to produce the tickets which are supposedly seized from the workman. She points out that the charge of issuing a wrong ticket or used tickets can only be proved if the used tickets which are reissued are on the record. In the absence of any proof to show that the used tickets were re-issued, she submits that there is no ground available for the punishment. Learned counsel also points out that the Tribunal recorded that the authorities failed to record the statements of the passengers who were issued the so-called duplicate tickets or used tickets. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this by itself is enough to hold that the enquiry is vitiated. Learned counsel also points out that the Tribunal recorded that the authorities failed to record the statements of the passengers who were issued the so-called duplicate tickets or used tickets. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this by itself is enough to hold that the enquiry is vitiated. Without the primary evidence, she submits that the charges cannot be said to be proved. 5. This Court after examining the matter and considering the submissions made is of the opinion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are essentially on the ground that he has issued tickets which were initially issued to some other passengers. The punching of the tickets in certain requisite stations was also not done. Therefore, the essential charge about issuing wrong tickets or re-issue of tickets cannot be set to have been proved without the same being produced in evidence. As rightly pointed out, these tickets are not part and parcel of the record. The submission of the learned counsel that it is also not proved that the tickets were punched with a malafide intention is also something that bears some weight. The opportunity or the denial of opportunity to cross-examine the Travel Ticket Inspectors is also a factor which has weighed with the Court. 6. Hence, after examining the matter from all the angles, this Court is essentially of the opinion that the primary documents necessary to prove the case or the material in the form of statements from the passengers who have issued tickets is also not there in the record. The findings in para 7 of the impugned award (even if the issue about the Deputy Manager is overlooked), are enough to grant relief to the workman. This Court does not find any merit in this matter, more so, after the passage of so much of time. Therefore, this Court holds that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs 7. Wp.No.2596 of 2001: This writ petition is filed by the employee/workman, who is the respondent in the earlier writ petition. In this case also the petitioner was charged in the year 2005 and once again for wrongly collecting the amounts from the passengers and issuing wrong tickets etc. A disciplinary enquiry was also conducted after the worker denied the charges. Wp.No.2596 of 2001: This writ petition is filed by the employee/workman, who is the respondent in the earlier writ petition. In this case also the petitioner was charged in the year 2005 and once again for wrongly collecting the amounts from the passengers and issuing wrong tickets etc. A disciplinary enquiry was also conducted after the worker denied the charges. The Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that the charges were proved and after following the due process of law, the petitioner was removed from service. Questioning the same, the ID.No.222 of 2006 was filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue and convince this Court that there was no material available before the Enquiry Officer to come to a conclusion that the workman was guilty. Learned counsel also argued that the punishment is disproportionate. She argued that the issues involved were only about collecting or misusing small amounts and that the dismissal of the petitioner is thus disproportionate punishment. She also argued that they did not check the cash that was available with the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Tribunal made a mistake in relying upon the past conduct of the petitioner. 9. In reply to this, learned standing counsel Sri K.Narsi Reddy argues that this is not the quantum of the amount involved in the case, but the breach of trust in mis-utilizing small amounts that should be considered. He also submits that the petitioner's track record must also be kept in mind. It is his contention that the petitioner was repeatedly punished on various grounds. He argues that the petitioner was censured about 11 times, his annual increments were deferred on 26 occasions and he was earlier suspended six times. He also submits that the petitioner was removed from service earlier, but was reinstated by the Appellate Authority or the Reviewing Authority. It is pointed out that the petitioner's is a chronic case for which dismissal from service is the appropriate remedy. He relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in V.Ramana v. A.P.SRTC and others, 2005 7 SCC 338 Managing Director, North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. K.Murti, 2006 12 SCC 570 and a Full Bench decision of the erstwhile A.P.High Court in V.Ramana v. A.P.SRTC and others, 2001 5 ALD 427 to support his argument. 10. 10. This Court after considering both the submissions of the learned counsel notices in this writ petition that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner and in the strict sense of the term, there is no failure of the rules of natural justice. Some material is also available. The ticket which was earlier issued to one passenger is re-issued. The spot statement of the petitioner was also recorded. The Tribunal also noticed that the petitioner had put in 26 years of service as on the date of the check. Therefore, the Tribunal did not accept the explanation that is given by the petitioner for the above ticket. The Tribunal held that the vast experience of the petitioner should have put him on guard. The statement from the passenger which was recorded was also noted. Tribunal noted that the passenger is a stranger to the petitioner and he had no reason to wrongly depose against the petitioner. Opportunity of cross-examination was also given apart from a show cause notice etc. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent also applies to the case on hand. The full bench decision of A.P.High Court in V.Ramana's case (3 supra) was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court clearly held as follows: ...... A conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of truest should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The appellant's conduct in collecting fare at the designated place and not collecting fare from persons who had already traveled were in violation of various regulations contained in the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963." 11. Even in the case of Managing Director, North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (2 supra), a similar finding was recorded. In the cases of breach of trust, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the punishments that were imposed. 12. After considering the case law, which in the opinion of this Court squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case and the factual matrix considered by the Industrial Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.