JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.43437 of 2016. 2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned standing counsel for TSRTC appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent no.4. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that appellant was engaged as Conductor on daily wages on 24.09.1991 and subsequently, his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.06.1992. While so, when the appellant was performing duty on 24.01.2010 on route from Kodad to Miryalaguda, a check was conducted at Allagadda and the checking officials found that he has re-issued the used tickets and consequently, charge memo framing three charges was issued to the appellant; that appellant submitted explanation to the charge memo; that not satisfied with the said explanation, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and regular inquiry was conducted and the appellant participated in the said inquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges are proved; that a show-cause notice was issued seeking objections from the appellant as to why he should not be removed from service. Appellant submitted his objections, however, respondent-Corporation removed the appellant from services vide order dated 25.09.2010. Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the same was also dismissed on 24.01.2011. The Revision and Review preferred by the appellant were also dismissed vide orders dated 22.06.2011 and 29.11.2011 respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the same, appellant filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad vide I.D.No.77 of 2012 and said I.D., was dismissed by the Labour Court on 16.02.2016. Aggrieved by the same, appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.No.43437 of 2016 and the learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition vide order dated 26.02.2024. Assailing the same, appellant filed the present Writ Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the appellant joined service of the respondent-Corporation on 24.09.1991 and since then he has been rendering services with the respondent-corporation. Assailing the same, appellant filed the present Writ Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the appellant joined service of the respondent-Corporation on 24.09.1991 and since then he has been rendering services with the respondent-corporation. It is further contended that the Labour Court as well as learned single Judge did not appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective and have come to erroneous conclusions and further, there was no attestation of witnesses on the purported statement of the question, which is a mandatory and hence, the allegations levelled against the appellant are not proved with any independent, valid evidence. He further contended that check was conducted on 24.01.2010 and charge memo was served after 20 days from the date of check i.e., 15.02.2010, which is contrary to the checking rules as prescribed in Chapter No.79 of the operational manual and initiation of disciplinary proceedings basing on the said charge memo is improper, illegal and therefore, the order of removal is also not sustainable and same is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondent-corporation contended that on earlier occasion, the annual increments of the appellant were deferred five times and he was also removed from service on 27.11.1997 for cash and ticket irregularities and was reinstated into service pursuant to the award passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.34 of 2001; that the appellant was once again suspended on 13.06.2007 for cash and ticket irregularities and subsequently, the suspension was revoked and the appellant was imposed punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The appellant again involved in ticket irregularities while conducting the Bus service on 24.01.2010 from the route from Kodad to Miryalaguda; that the checking officials recorded the statements of passengers and the appellant and one of the passengers signed on the statements. It is further contended that proper inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer and the appellant participated in the inquiry and basing on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the appellant was removed from service. Learned standing counsel finally contended that order of removal of appellant from services is proper and there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has considered the grounds raised and submissions made by the appellant and the learned standing counsel for respondent-Corporation. 8. Learned standing counsel finally contended that order of removal of appellant from services is proper and there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has considered the grounds raised and submissions made by the appellant and the learned standing counsel for respondent-Corporation. 8. On perusal of record, it is evident that appellant was involved in cash and ticket irregularity on 24.01.2010 and consequent to a check conducted by the officials of the respondent-corporation, charge memo issued on 24.01.2010 and followed by charge sheet on 27.02.2010. A regular inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report on 02.08.2010. It is also evident that appellant participated in the inquiry and was provided reasonable opportunity to defend him in the inquiry and in fact, the appellant has not raised any objection with regard to procedure adopted by the inquiry officer in departmental proceedings. 9. The principal contention raised by the appellant is with regard to delay in serving charge memo and also recording of statements by the checking officials at the time of inspection and further, non-examination of any witness and evidence. 10. Perusal of the material on record would show that appellant had reissued the tickets bearing no.648/189791 and 648/186799 of Rs.10/- to two passengers and reissued tickets bearing no.252/566939 of Rs.19/- deno., and 861/664841 and 842 of Rs.8/- deno., to three passengers, which were already issued in the previous trips duly collecting the requisite fare from the passengers. The checking officials recorded the statements of passengers present at the time of check and the appellant attested all the statements without any dispute and did not offer any explanation, however, the appellant refused to sign on the charge memo on the spot. Therefore, the charge memo was sent to the Depot Manager for serving the same on the appellant and the appellant attested the charge memo on 15.02.2010 without any dispute. It is also evident from the award dated 16.02.2016 passed by the Labour Court that the contention of the appellant that the check was conducted improperly and that checking officials have seized STAR document and again served the duplicate STAR document was negatived by the Labour Court on due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 11. It is also evident from the award dated 16.02.2016 passed by the Labour Court that the contention of the appellant that the check was conducted improperly and that checking officials have seized STAR document and again served the duplicate STAR document was negatived by the Labour Court on due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 11. Now, as regards the issue, whether the punishment imposed on the appellant is commensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177 . 12. In Parma Nanda’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue as to whether the Tribunal has power to modify the penalty awarded by the competent authority on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved, at paragraph-27 of the judgment, held as under: “27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.” 13. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.” 13. By observing thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the penalty and substitute its own discretion with that of the competent authority and further, the Tribunal cannot step into the shoes of Inquiry Officer if the penalty imposed by the Inquiry Officer is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter. 14. In the instant case, at the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that for the proven misconduct, the appellant was issued charge memo on 24.01.2010 on the ground that he has re-issued the used tickets; that after conducting inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer, punishment of removal from service was imposed on the appellant. Further, it is to be noted that on two earlier occasions also, the appellant was imposed punishment of deferment of increments, which clearly indicates repeated instances of misconduct of the appellant. 15. In considered opinion of this Court, the punishment imposed on the appellant is commensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parma Nanda’s case (supra), this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the respondent-corporation on the appellant. 16. In view of the above facts and discussion, this Court is of the considered view that there are no merits in the writ appeal and the appellant failed to make out any case warranting this court to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.43437 of 2016. Hence, writ appeal fails and same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.