ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2006 passed in I.D.No.26 of 2005 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’). 2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner joined the service of the respondents' Corporation as a Conductor on 21.01.1997 and his services were regularized on 01.01.1998. On 08.12.2003, while the petitioner was conducting the bus service in between Ieeja and Sindhanoor, a check was exercised at Stage No.10 i.e., Merridoddi and issued a memo alleging as follows :- “(1) I forgotten to observe the rule of issue of tickets and start ; (2) Collected Rs.13/- each from (2) passengers and not issued tickets to them who found travelling from Ieeja and Sindhanoor and (3) closed the SR upto stage No.10.” (b) The petitioner filed an explanation to the said charge memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent suspended the petitioner on 15.12.2003 and issued charge-sheet framing the following charges. “1. For having failed to observe the rule issue and start which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having collected an amount of Rs.26.00 at the boarding point Ieeja itself and failed to issue tickets to a batch of two (2) passengers, who were traveling without tickets from Ieeja to Sindhanoor (ex-stage Nos.8 to 15), which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having closed the SR against the stage No.10 without issuing the tickets to above two passengers which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”. (c) The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the charges levelled against him. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent passed order dated 17.04.2004 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2004. Challenging the order, dated 30.09.2004, the petitioner filed I.D.No.26 of 2005 before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 18.09.2006. Questioning the order, dated 18.09.2006, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2004. Challenging the order, dated 30.09.2004, the petitioner filed I.D.No.26 of 2005 before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 18.09.2006. Questioning the order, dated 18.09.2006, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the material on record. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that the passengers in question clearly deposed that due to their own fault, they could not tender the fare at the rate of Rs.13/- each inspite of conductor’s request. With regard to the said deposition, neither the enquiry officer sought any clarification nor the passengers in question were cross-examined by the TTIs. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not collected fare of Rs.13/- as alleged by the respondents. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer is nothing but perverse, as the petitioner has not issued tickets to the passengers in question for not tendering Rs.13/- each towards fare. The 1 st respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed the order dated 17.04.2004 removing the petitioner from service and the same was erroneously confirmed by the appellate authority as well as Labour Court. 6. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the Award dated 18.09.2006 passed in I.D.No.26 of 2005 by the Labour Court and allow the writ petition. 7. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The petitioner joined the service of the Corporation on 21.01.1997 as a casual conductor and his services were regularized. During his service, he was imposed several punishments. The petitioner was censured twice and his increments were deferred 11 times prior to his involvement in the present case. (b) On 08.12.2003, while the petitioner was performing duty as Conductor on bus bearing No. AP-9Z-6509 on route leeja to Sindanoor, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.10 and that the petitioner besides violating the rule issue and start has failed to issue tickets to two passengers, who were found travelling without ticket from stage Nos.8 to 15. The petitioner despite collecting the requisite fare @ Rs.13/- each from the passengers in question at the boarding point itself did not issue tickets to them. The ticket less passengers have crossed a distance of two fare stages (10 kms) and the petitioner with malafied intention to defraud the revenues of the Corporation did not issue tickets to them in a meager capacity of 31 passengers including two ticket less passengers. (c) The checking officials have obtained the statement of the ticket less passengers, which was written by the petitioner himself and was attested as correct. The checking officials have issued charge memo to the petitioner and he also offered his spot explanation. (d) Based on the irregularities enumerated in the charge memo and the explanation offered by the petitioner and that the irregularity being serious in nature, the 1 st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension and issued charge sheet on 05.12.2003 framing three charges against the petitioner. (e) The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet is found unsatisfactory and a detailed enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent, after following the procedure laid down under the Regulations, removed the petitioner from service on 17.04.2004. Aggrieved by the orders of removal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2004. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed I.D.No.26 of 2005 before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 18.09.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the statement of the ticket less passengers, who were travelling without tickets, was written by the petitioner himself and that he admitted the correctness of Ex.M2 (passenger statement) which was written with his own hand writing. The petitioner has committed serious misconduct amounting to misappropriation and that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The action taken against the petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, which is legal and valid. Therefore, the 1 st respondent rightly imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings, dated 17.04.2004 and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Labour Court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the 1 st respondent rightly imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings, dated 17.04.2004 and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Labour Court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the petitioner has joined the service of the respondents’ Corporation on 21.01.1997, subsequently his services were regularized on 01.01.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service on 17.04.2004. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2 nd respondent, which was dismissed on 30.09.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.26 of 2005, which was also dismissed on 18.09.2006. After a lapse of three years, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Award dated 18.09.2006 passed by the Labour Court. 10. The 1 st respondent issued charge-sheet against the petitioner on 15.12.2003 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.12.2003 denying the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 11.03.2004 observing as follows :- “The delinquent in his charge-sheet explanation dated 18.2.2003, wherein he referred for the charge No.2 that the passengers in question have boarded at Ieeja and bound to travel upto Sindhanoor along with other 2 batch of passengers. He had issued tickets to all the passengers in the bus and also verified the bus pass holders. The passengers in question given only Rs.20/- to him instead of requisite fare of Rs.26/- @ Rs.13/- each. He had demanded the balance of Rs.6/- from them but they failed to tender the balance amount of Rs.6/- to him as such he had returned back Rs.20/- to them and asked them to get down from the bus, but the passengers are argued with him, mean while the check took place. Further, he also stated that the TTIs had taken TPTs to implicate him in false case by obtaining his spot statement. He also stated that the passengers statement was made him to write as per the dictation of the TTIs to suit their case. The delinquent in his enquiry deposition repeated the same.” 11. Further, he also stated that the TTIs had taken TPTs to implicate him in false case by obtaining his spot statement. He also stated that the passengers statement was made him to write as per the dictation of the TTIs to suit their case. The delinquent in his enquiry deposition repeated the same.” 11. In the very same enquiry report, it is further observed as follows :- “The delinquent in his enquiry deposition deposed that on 08.12.2003 the said passengers were arguing in regard ticket fare as such the stage No.9 had approached and after issuing tickets to other passengers he had closed the SR upto stage No.9 by imagining that the above passengers were also issued tickets. As such, on approaching stage No.10 he had also closed the SR as usually by forgotten to issue tickets to them by thinking that he might had issued them tickets.” 12. From the above two observations in the enquiry report, it is clear that the petitioner himself admitted his guilt. 13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, HYDERABAD Vs. MOHD.KHAN AND ANOTHER , [ 2015 (4) ALD 173 (DB)] , wherein nil award was passed against the petitioner and the learned Single Judge of this Court while setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court, the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages was granted. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the APSRTC approached the Division Bench and the said Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal by observing as follows :- “It is true that the scope of interference in a writ petition with the award passed by the Labour Court is very limited. At the sametime, if the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, or the one arrived at by the Labour Court is contrary to the record, the High Court cannot ignore it.” 14. In the above case, the charge against the petitioner was that he had issued a used ticket of Rs.5/- denomination to a passenger. Except the said charge, there were no other charges against the petitioner during his past service. Moreover, he had received several letters of appreciation from the Department for his honest service. In the above case, the charge against the petitioner was that he had issued a used ticket of Rs.5/- denomination to a passenger. Except the said charge, there were no other charges against the petitioner during his past service. Moreover, he had received several letters of appreciation from the Department for his honest service. Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner does not have a clean service record, as he had been censured twice and his increments had been deferred 11 times prior to his involvement in the present case. In such circumstances, the above referred case is not applicable to the case on hand. 15. In the instant case, the petitioner himself admitted his guilt and therefore, the 1st respondent rightly imposed the punishment of removal from service and the same also was confirmed by the appellate authority. The Labour Court while dismissing the Award, referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC, ETAWHA AND OTHERS Vs. HOTI LAL AND ANOTHER , (JT 2003 (2) SC 27) wherein the Apex Court held as follows :- “The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury’s case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.” 16. In the instant case, the respondents have followed the due process of law while conducting the enquiry. Moreover, the petitioner himself admitted his guilt and based on the enquiry report and the submissions made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority. In the instant case, the respondents have followed the due process of law while conducting the enquiry. Moreover, the petitioner himself admitted his guilt and based on the enquiry report and the submissions made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority. Further, the Labour Court also, after considering the material on record and after hearing both sides, basing on the above referred judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, rightly dismissed the I.D. In the instant case, the petitioner joined the service in the year 1997 and his services were regularized in the year 1998 and thereafter, he was suspended in the year 2003. Within a short span of service, the petitioner was censured twice and his increments were deferred 11 times prior to his involvement in the present case. 17. In the above circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any equitable relief or reinstatement in service. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court upon due consideration of the material on record, is of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has rightly rendered the impugned Award. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality warranting interference with the said Award. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.