JUDGMENT Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Heard Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the respondents and perused the material on record. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:- 'It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of CERTIORARI calling for the records in connection with the Award dated 23-02-2005 in ID No. 174/2002, on the file of Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and by quashing the same, to the extent of denial of back wages, and directing imposition of punishment, as arbitrary, illegal and by quashing to that extent and direct extension of the benefits of back wages and restore increment, with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.' 3. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No. 174/2002 (A. Appa Rao vs. The Depot Manager, APSRTC) to the extent of denial of back wages and directing imposition of punishment as contrary, illegal and quashing to that extent only. 4. The petitioner was a driver of APSRTC, Paderu depot on 19.02.2000. He was on duty on vehicle No. AP10Z 1294 on route Paderu-Uppa. He was served with the charge sheet dated 07.04.2000 containing four charges against him as follows:- 'The 1st charge was that the petitioner denied the vehicle near Uppa at 8.45 hours, intentionally. The 2nd charge was that he left the vehicle without any message to Garage people for 7 hours and absconded from duty in full drunken condition and was driving the vehicle in an intoxication condition. The 3rd charge was that he failed to submit message to the Garage directly and for sending a written complaint through another conductor. The 4th charge was that in Publication in Vartha newspaper with regard to the driving of the vehicle in drunken condition.' 5. The petitioner filed his explanation to the charge sheet. The management being not satisfied with the explanation ordered domestic enquiry. 6. The enquiry officer found the charges 2 to 4 proved and the charge No. 1 was found not proved. The petitioner filed his explanation to the charge sheet. The management being not satisfied with the explanation ordered domestic enquiry. 6. The enquiry officer found the charges 2 to 4 proved and the charge No. 1 was found not proved. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for removal from service by order dated 22.09.2000. The petitioner was removed from services and his departmental appeal was dismissed on 18.11.2000. The review filed there against was also rejected on 19.12.2001. 7. The petitioner filed ID. No. 174 of 2002. The petitioner examined himself as WW 1 and no documents were marked. On behalf of the management, MW 1 was examined and Exs. M1 to M26 were marked. 8. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:- '7. The points for consideration in this matter are:- 1. Whether the misconduct of the petitioner is proved? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages? 3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled?' 9. The Industrial Tribunal concurred with the findings on the charges as recorded by the Enquiry Officer. However, the Tribunal recorded that the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and modified the punishment of removal to withholding of two (02) annual increments with cumulative effect by reinstating the petitioner, without back wages but with continuity of service. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment modified by the Tribunal is also disproportionate to the charges. The petitioner should have been granted the back wages while ordering reinstatement. 11. Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC/respondents, submits that there is no illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal and on the proved charges of misconduct the order of punishment for removal was passed, which has already been modified by the Tribunal. The modified punishment awarded by the Tribunal is certainly not disproportionate to the proved charges of misconduct. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. There is no challenge to the findings of proved misconduct. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined to the part of the award on the point of modified punishment only. 15. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. There is no challenge to the findings of proved misconduct. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined to the part of the award on the point of modified punishment only. 15. In Union of India and others vs. Diler Singh (2016) 13 SCC 71 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that unless punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the other authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. 16. The Tribunal has already modified the punishment of removal to withholding of two (02) annual increments with cumulative effect by reinstating the petitioner without back wages but with continuity of service. The petitioner has already been reinstated and has also retired. 17. The order of punishment as modified by the Tribunal the Court does not find to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges of misconduct. 18. The petition was filed in the year 2014 challenging the award dated 23.02.2005 i.e. after almost 9 years of the imposition of the punishment. 19. There is no force in the writ petition. The Award impugned does not call for any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 20. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 21. Let the record of the Tribunal be sent back. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.