WP/19367/2007 of J.KRISHNA(J.KISTAIAH), HYDERABAD Vs THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC, HYD AND ANOTHER, on 30 December 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for thepetitioner anrl Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counselfor the respondents Corporation.

2. This w:rit petition is filed under Article 226 ofConstitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to declarethe action of the respondents in imposing the modifiedpunishment of reduction of payment of one incremental stagefor a period of two years, which shali have effect ofpostponement of petitioner's future increment and treating theperiod i.e., from the date of remova-l till date ol reporting to theduty as 'not on dutSr',AS arbitrar5r, disproportionate andunreasonable and consequently to set aside the hna-l orderProc.No.PA/2O(238)2OO4-HCR, dated 06.O6.2005 passed bythe first respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner\\rasappointed as a "Conductor" in the respondent Corporation. On27.O8.2OO4 while he was performing his duties on27"O8.2OO4at Bus No.AP. lO-Z 4258 on route No.230-A. a check was conducted at Stage No.16 and the checking officials found [,^)]cash and ticket irregularities and a charge memo was issuedto the petitioner. The petitioner submitted explanation to thesalne.Thereafter, the respondent Corporation had issuedcharge sheet dated OI.O9.2OO4 along with suspension orderalleging t1.at the petitioner failed to issue a ticket of Rs.3/- toa passenger even after collecting the fare from him. Thepetitioner submitted detailed explanation to the charge sheet.The respondents' Corporation without considering the saidexplanation a formal enquiry was conducted and finally thepetitioner was removed from service vide Procgs.No.02/1995(22) 12O04-JDM dated 04.ll.2OO4. The petitionerpreferredanappeal before the Divisional Manager,Sanathnagar Division uide Progs. Dated O8.1,2.2OO4.Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before theRegional Manager, Hyderabad City Region. The firstrespondent passed the impugned Proceedings No.PA/2 0(238) I2004-HCR dated 06.06.2005 ordering reinstatement intoservice by reducing pay by one incremental stage for a [period]of 2 years, which shall have the [effect ]of [postponement ][on]future increments and that [the ][period ]from the [date ][of]

removal till date of reporting duty shall be treated as 'not onduty'for all practical purposes.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehementlycontended that the Enquiry Officer without considering theexplalation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo,submitted the Enquiry Report. He further contended that theco-passengers themselves have stated before the TTIs that thepassenger was in drunken condition as confirmed by the TTI.The said statement given by the co-passengers was notconsidered by the Enquiry Officer during the course ofenquiry. The statements given by the passengers itself wouldestablish that there was no intention of misappropriation ofany arnount and have not caused any loss to the respondentCorporation. In such circumstances, the first respondentought not to have imposed the punishment of reduction ofpayment by one increment for a period of two years withcumulative effect, which is quite disproportionate and againstthe doctrine of proportionality.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents filed counteraffidavit inter aliq. contending that the respondent Corporationafter following the procedure contemplated under the Regulations, the petitioner was removed from service. The first irespondent after taking into consideration of petitioner's pastservice took a lenient view and ordered reinstatement of thepetitioner by awarding lesser punishment and there is noillegality in the impugned order passed by the firstrespondent.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the materialplaced on record, apparently the petitioner had submitted hisexplanation to the charge sheet for the charges levelled againsthim stating that the fellow passengers have given statementswherein they stated that the passenger was in intoxicationcondition and the sarne was confirmed by the TTI also. Duringthe course of enquiry, the Enquiry Oflicer has not consideredthe statements given by the fellow passengers and submittedhis report. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightiycontended that the first respondent without considering theevidence on record including statements given by thepassengers passed the impugned order imposing punishmentof withholding of one incremental stage for a [period ]of twoyears, which shall have bearing effect of postponement of hisfuture increment and that the period from the date [q{ ]remov.al til1 date of reporting for duty shall be treated as 'not on duty'"Though the respondent Corporation has tailed to establishthat the act of the petitioner was intentional in not issuing theticket to the passenger who was in intoxication condition andthat he played a fraud to cause colossal linancial loss to theexchequer o1' respondent-Corporation but it is a case ofnegligence on the part of the petitioner. In suchcircumstances, the first respondent ought not to have imposedpunishment disproportionately; such as, stoppage of oneincrement for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances ofthe case and also the length of service rendered by thepetitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify thequantum of punishment of stoppage of annual gradeincrement without cumulative effect for a period of two years.However, it is made clear that this modification of punishmentshall have prospective effect only from the date of passing ofthis order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim themonetar5r benefits for the period prior to passing of this order.

II

8. Subject to the above modification, the writ petition is Opartly allowed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writpetition, shall stand closed.

SD/-T,JAYASREEASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//(isecnoNOFFICER

To

1. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, JBS PicketSecunderabad.,. 16" [pe,fot ]l4en?Ser, TSRTC, Musheerabad Bus Depot, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

4. One CC to SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC IOPUC]

5. Two CD Copies

PSK.

BSBr

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212022

ORDER$!. [SIA])4.WP.No.19367 ot [2007]?oL)2 3 J['t{ [70?3];:' i:l: [' ];/t).:._r'

ALLOWING PARTLY [THE ][WRIT ][PETITION]WITHOUT COSTS.

+

(