WP/18765/2009 of G.Srinivasulu Vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC, on 29 December 2009

ORDER:

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINIWRIT PETITION No.18765 of 2009

The petitioner herein is working as a Conductor in APSRTC,Nagarkurnool Bus Depot. This writ petition is filed seeking adeclaration that the order passed by the respondent dated 30.01.2009 proposing to recover a sum of Rs.17,779/- from the salary of thepetitioner in 15 instalments towards cost of loss of ticket blocks asarbitrary and illegal.

It is not in dispute that an enquiry was held with regard to theloss of Tray No.073 with Ticket Blocks while the petitioner wasconducting the Bus on 27.08.2007 and ultimately the impugned ordercame to be passed holding that the value of the tickets which workedout as Rs.17,799/- shall be recovered from the petitioner since it wasthe bounden duty of the petitioner who was the custodian of the tray ofthe tickets to secure the property of the Corporation.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filedcontending that there was no negligence on the part of the petitionerand at any rate, since there was no revenue loss to the Corporation tothe extent of Rs.17,799/-, the recovery sought to be made under theimpugned order is arbitrary and illegal.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter-affidavitfiled on behalf of the Corporation.

Regulation 8 of the APSRTC (CCA) Regulations, 1967, which provides for penalties runs as under :

8. Penalties:

(1) The following penalties may, for good andsufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, beimposed upon an employee namely:-

(i) … … … …. …

(ii) … … … …. …

(iii) … … … …. …

(iv) … … … …. …

(v) recovery from pay of the whole or part of anypecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by anemployee’s negligence or breach of orders;

…. … … … …. … …

A plain reading of the above provision shows that recovery canbe ordered by the Corporation from pay of the employee of anypecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence on the part ofsuch employee or on account of breach of orders.

Even assuming that the petitioner is responsible for the loss ofthe tray containing the ticket blocks, as per Regulation 8 (1) (v) theCorporation is entitled only to recover the cost incurred by it inprinting the said tickets together with tray. No other clause could bepointed out empowering the Corporation to impose the penalty ofrecovery of amount more than the amount of loss suffered by theCorporation.

Admittedly the loss that was suffered by the Corporation wasonly the cost that was incurred by the Corporation for printing theticket blocks and the cost of the tray. Hence though it is open to theCorporation to recover the said amount from the petitioner, theimpugned order to recover the amount which the lost tickets couldhave fetched if they were sold to the passengers travelling in the busis without authority and illegal.

In identical circumstances, in CH. P. REDDY v. A.P. STATEROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION[[1]]this Court held that sincethe charge was essentially of loosing the tickets, the petitioner thereincould not be punished for any other charge and consequently theCorporation could not be allowed to recover the value of tickets lost.

The petitioner herein is also similarly situated and admittedlythere is no allegation of any fraud against the petitioner.

In the circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set asideand the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondentsto pass appropriate orders afresh in the light of the observations madeabove. No costs.

____________G.ROHINI, J.

Dt. 24.12.2009 gbs

Conclusion

[1] 2000 (5) ALT 7 2000 (5) ALT 7