ORDER : 1. W.P. No. 29602 of 2014 was filed for the following relief: “to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 11.09.2014 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the service of the Corporation in the interest of justice.” 2. W.P. No. 40763 of 2015 was filed for the following relief: “to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the appeal vide proceedings No. PA/10(25)/2015-DY-CTM-ELR, dated 20.03.2015 in justifying the ex-parte removal orders dated 19.12.2014 in proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the orders passed in appeal Vide No. PA/10(25)/2015-DY-CTM- ELR, dated 20.03.2015 as well as ex-parte removal order, dated 19.12.2014 in proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. The Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same. W.P. No. 29602 of 2014 was filed challenging the Suspension Proceedings. W.P. No. 40763 of 2015 was filed subsequently challenging the termination proceedings. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1997 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the “Corporation” for brevity). While petitioner was performing the duty in Bus No. AP-37Z-0110 of Jangareddigudem as Conductor on 07.09.2014 at 12:30 hours on the route Jangareddigudem-Tekuru, a check was conducted at Buttaigudem and the checking inspectors found that petitioner issued ticket wroth of Rs. 10/- only instead of fare ticket worth of Rs. 18/- having collected Rs. 20/- from a lady passenger and failed to refund the due amount of Rs. 2/- to her, who boarded in the said bus at Dondapudi. Basing on the complaint given by the Inspecting officials, the 3rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 11.09.2014 and charge sheeted the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the said Suspension Order vide proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 11.09.2014, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 29602 of 2014. 2/- to her, who boarded in the said bus at Dondapudi. Basing on the complaint given by the Inspecting officials, the 3rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 11.09.2014 and charge sheeted the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the said Suspension Order vide proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 11.09.2014, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 29602 of 2014. The Respondents Corporation filed its Counter affidavit resisting the case of the petitioner and the Writ Petition is pending. 6. Meanwhile, the petitioner went to his native place i.e. Palantla village during Sankranthi Vacation, and he was told by the Postman that earlier two registered covers came on his name, but due to the reason that he was not available, they have returned to the sendors address. On enquiries, the petitioner came to know that he had been issued enquiry notice and thereafter removal order vide Proceedings Dated 10.01.2015. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 31.01.2015 to respondent No. 3 brining to his notice that he did not receive any enquiry notice and show cause notice and requested to give him an opportunity to produce documentary evidence to support and consider his case. As there is no action, he filed W.P. No. 13443 of 2015 before this Court questioning the Order of Removal from service. Later on, the said Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 26-11-2015. 7. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No. 3 on 02-02-2015. The Appellate Authority, without considering the case of the petitioner in a proper manner and not considering the specific plea taken by the petitioner so as to why the enquiry notice and the removal order was sent to the native village address of the petitioner instead of the present address available in the office of respondent No. 3 by refusing to give opportunity to hear the version of the petitioner, dismissed the appeal on 20-03-2015. Aggrieved by the rejection of appeal vide Proceedings No. PA109/25/2015-Dy-CTM-ECR, dated 20.03.2015, in which ex-parte removal order dated 19.11.2014, in proceedings No. 02/95 (174)/2014-JRG was confirmed by the appellate authority, the present Writ Petition is filed. 8. Learned Standing Counsel filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents Corporation stating that the petitioner was initially engaged as contract conductor with effect from 13.02.1997 at Nidadavolu Depot and subsequently his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1998. 8. Learned Standing Counsel filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents Corporation stating that the petitioner was initially engaged as contract conductor with effect from 13.02.1997 at Nidadavolu Depot and subsequently his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1998. While the petitioner was performing duty on 07.09.2014 with vehicle No. A.P.37 Z 0110, some irregularities were found by the TTI’s of HES/TNK on the route Tekuru-J.R. Gudem at Buttaigudem stage when they were checking. Basing on the charge memo, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet duly keeping him under suspension, vide Proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG, dated 11.09.2014. But, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation even in spite of required documents supplied as required by him. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct detailed enquiry into the case. The enquiry officer sent a notice to the petitioner which was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that he was not there. On an enquiry over phone, the petitioner informed that he won’t attend for enquiry and the same has been incorporated in the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. Basing on the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from the service of the Corporation duly following the due procedure vide proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 19.12.2014. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Inspecting Authority without verifying the number of tickets issued and without tallying with the S.R. and bus cash mechanically made false allegations and basing on the said complaint, the 3rd respondent without applying his mind placed him under suspension. Learned counsel further submits that no enquiry is required in the present case, as passenger referred in the charge sent a letter on 17.09.2014 to the 3rd respondent to the effect that the petitioner issued proper tickets and checking officials not allowed her to verify the tickets in her bag. As such, the action of the 3rd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension without considering the facts and circumstances is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Learned counsel further submits that he submitted a representation, dated 31.01.2015 to the respondent No. 3 bringing to his notice that the petitioner has not received any enquiry notice and show cause notice and requested to give him an opportunity to produce documentary evidence to support his case and to consider his case. 10. Learned counsel further submits that he submitted a representation, dated 31.01.2015 to the respondent No. 3 bringing to his notice that the petitioner has not received any enquiry notice and show cause notice and requested to give him an opportunity to produce documentary evidence to support his case and to consider his case. As there is no action has been taken, he filed W.P. No. 13443 of 2015 before this Court questioning his removal from service and a direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 31.01.2015. Later, he had to withdraw the said writ petition as he preferred appeal vide Appeal No. PA/19(25)/2015-Dy.CTM-ELR, dated 20.03.2015. Hence, the petitioner had withdrawn the said writ petition on 26.11.2015 to file writ petition afresh and this Court dismissed as withdrawn permitting to file writ petition afresh. 11. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submits that as there is prima-facie case to get more details in the case and a detailed enquiry is needed and as such, the case was entrusted to the Enquiry Officer to conduct detailed enquiry. Learned standing counsel further submits that the passenger herself stated in her statement on the spot that she gave Rs. 20/- to conductor and in turn the conductor issued only Rs. 10/- denomination ticket instead of Rs. 18/- ticket and she also stated that the conductor did not refund the balance amount of Rs. 2/- to her. The said statement was recorded in the presence of conductor by the Inspecting authority. Learned standing counsel further submits that the second letter posted by the said passenger after 10 days was considered a managed one, because she changed the entire version from which she gave on the spot. Learned standing counsel contends that the petitioner might have attended the detailed enquiry and produce the alleged lady passenger before the enquiry officer to get the actual facts by examining the checking officials and can prove his innocence. But, the petitioner willfully and intentionally avoided to attend the enquiry which also speaks the petitioner committed the misconduct as per the regulations of Corporation. The domestic enquiry was completed and final order of a removal was passed by the 3rd respondent. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 13. The domestic enquiry was completed and final order of a removal was passed by the 3rd respondent. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 13. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner was that he collected Rs. 20/- from a lady passenger, who boarded the bus bearing No. AP-37Z-0110 at Dondapudi and bound for Buttaigudem and issued ticket worth Rs. 10/- instead of ticket worth Rs. 18/- and failed to refund the change amount of Rs. 2/- while he was performing duties as conductor at 12:30 hours Tekuru Night Halt service on 07.09.2014. Based on the said allegation, respondent No. 2 issued Charge sheet leveling two charges against the petitioner. Basing on the report of the TTI, as respondent No. 2 found there is prima-facie case against the petitioner, the petitioner was kept under suspension, vide Proceedings dated 11-09-2014, and a charge sheet was also issued on the same day. The Assistant Manager (Enquiries), RM Office, Eluru, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct detailed enquiry into the case and to submit the report. The case of the respondent is that the enquiry officer has provided all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case, but he had failed to attend to the enquiry for which the Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry ex-parte and submitted his report on 20-10-2014. In the said report, the Enquiry Officer opined that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt. A copy of the Enquiry Report was also sent to the petitioner to offer his remarks, but the petitioner failed to submit his remarks/objections on the Enquiry Report. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 25-11-2014 to the petitioner for removal of the petitioner from service and sent the same through R.P.A.D. to the residential address of the petitioner which was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that door locked. Respondent No. 2 ordered for removal of the petitioner from the service of the respondent corporation, vide Proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 19.12.2014. Aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 and the same was also rejected, confirming the order of respondent No. 2. Against the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 14. Aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 and the same was also rejected, confirming the order of respondent No. 2. Against the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 14. The case of the petitioner was that on 07-09-2014 at 12:30 hours on the route Jangareddigudem-Tekuru, a check was conducted at Buttaigudem and the checking inspectors alleged that the petitioner issued ticket worth Rs. 10/- only instead of fare ticket worth of Rs. 18/- having collected Rs. 20/- from a lady passenger and failed to refund the due amount of Rs. 2/- to her, who boarded the bus at Dondapudi. 15. The case of the petitioner is that the allegation made against him that he has not issued ticket to the said lady passenger having collected Rs. 20/- from her and only issued ticket of Rs. 10/- is false. He has issued tickets to all the passengers immediately on their boarding into the bus and due to non function of the team machine, he issued tickets to some passengers manually, though the lack of handle of block of tickets were issued to him with combination. Hence, he issued tickets to the passengers as per fare with combination. One lady passenger boarded the bus at Dondapudi and purchased ticket upto Buttaigudem to whom the petitioner had issued tickets with a combination of Rs. 10/- + Rs. 7/- + Rs. 1/- totally Rs. 18/- as was ticket fare with ticket bearing No. 478-484-484700 pertaining to Rs. 10/- ticket bearing No. 741-769256 pertaining to Rs. 7/- and ticket bearing No. 036-122480 pertaining to Rs. 1/- respectively. When the checking officials boarded the bus at Buttaigudem and inspected the tickets from all the passengers boarded into the bus and a lady passenger when shown only one ticket of Rs. 10/- instead of three tickets issued to her picking up one ticket only from her bag, having observed only one ticket, the inspecting team without hearing the version of the petitioner to compare the cash that the petitioner was holding at that time, a false case has been registered against him without there being taken any evidence from the other passengers who boarded in the bus. The inspection was not conducted in proper perspective and basing on that inspection report, respondent No. 2 has suspended the petitioner and sought the explanation of the petitioner stating that he violated the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1963. 16. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the alleged enquiry notice and the removal order were not served on the petitioner and all these things happened without the knowledge of the petitioner and behind his back. Respondent No. 2 failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was not received any enquiry notice and the termination order. The appellate Authority also without considering the fact that the show cause notice and the termination order were sent to the address of the petitioner’s native village instead of sending it to the present residential address available in 2nd respondent’s office. Due to non service of the enquiry notice only, the petitioner could not attend the enquiry for which he was removed from service by conducting ex-parte proceedings. 17. As seen from the material available on record, admittedly, the petitioner was not put on notice properly in accordance with the settled procedure before passing Proceedings dated 19-12-2014 by respondent No. 2 to remove the petitioner from the services of the respondent corporation. It establishes that the respondent authorities sent the notice and termination order to the native address of the petitioner instead of the present residential address available in the 2nd respondent’s office. It is also to be noted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to consider the statement of the lady passenger. In the said statement, she categorically admitted that she paid the charge of Rs. 20/- for Buttayagudem and against that, the conductor gave her three tickets and she was told by the conductor that at the time of getting down the bus, she can collect the change of Rs. 2/-. She kept the tickets along with cell phone under the clothes in the bag. In the said statement, the lady passenger narrated the factual position occurred during the journey and under what circumstances she could not produce the other two tickets issued by the petitioner to the inspecting authorities. 2/-. She kept the tickets along with cell phone under the clothes in the bag. In the said statement, the lady passenger narrated the factual position occurred during the journey and under what circumstances she could not produce the other two tickets issued by the petitioner to the inspecting authorities. Respondent No. 2, without considering the statement of the lady passenger in proper perspective and if required, without calling her for enquiry, simply came to the conclusion that the statement of the lady passenger is not considered as she was managed. Respondent No. 3 also while rejecting the appeal did not consider this aspect. 18. In an identical circumstances, this Court in A.V. Swamy vs. The APSRTC, 2015 (6) ALD 157 , held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by way of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the charge of closing the SR prematurely and this requires to be interfered with by way of modification of the punishment imposed on the petitioner, and accordingly, this Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner therein into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. 19. Upon perusing the material available on record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the charges levelled against the petitioner and for the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment imposed against the petitioner by way of removal from service is disproportionate and to meet the interest of justice, interference of this Court is required to modify the punishment imposed against the petitioner. 20. Accordingly, the Order of removal is modified as follows: “The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages.” 21. Accordingly, W.P. No. 40763 of 2015 is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as conductor forthwith with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. W.P. No. 29602 of 2014 22. For the reasons stated above, no further orders are required in W.P. No. 29602 of 2014 and accordingly, the present Writ Petition is closed as infructuous. 23. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.