Telangana High Court
WP/24663/2004 of M.Narasaiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation, on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24663 of 2004 Between: M.Narasaiah, s/o Chandraiah, aged 53 years, Occ: Asst. Depot
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24663 of 2004
Between:
M.Narasaiah, s/o Chandraiah, aged 53 years,Occ: Asst. Depot Clerk StaffNo.76690, r/o Donga Thurthi Via Basanthnagar, Karimnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Depot Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Manthani Depot, Manthani, Karimnagar District.
....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus orany other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings No.01/443(3)/2001-MNTYdated 9-1-2003 ordering recovery of Rs.21,255/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Operational Manual of the APSRTC and violative of principles of natural justice andconsequently set aside the same with further direction to the respondents to refundthe amounts already recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to the office orderNo.01/443(3)/2001-MNTY dated 9/1/2003 and pass other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR
Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The allegation against the petitioner is that he has not properly checked the tickettray box from Sri B.Hari Chand, Conductor, Manthani Depot and collected bus cashfrom him and caused the improper maintenance of details of ticket blocks in the trayand because of his negligence tickets blocks worth Rs.21,255/- were found missing.Two charges have been framed against the writ petitioner and after calling forexplanation the present impugned proceedings have been passed directing thepetitioner to pay Rs.21,255/- towards loss of the tickets blocks. Challenging thesame, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Corporation is entitled torecover the amount for printing and stationery charges of the tickets blocks, but notvalue of the tickets and therefore it suffers from serious legal infirmities. He placedreliance on the decision of this Court in Ch.P.REDDY v. A.P.S.R.T.C,HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER wherein it was held thus:
“ In no case, an amount more than the amount which was lost by the Corporation can berecovered from the negligent official.”
3. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentscontended that there are two charges and the second charge is for the Departmentto take appropriate decision and even with regard to the first charge the value of theprinting charges and the stationery of the missing blocks of the tickets have to bedetermined by the respondents.
4. Following the said judgment, the impugned proceedings are to be set aside sincethe amount sought to be recovered is the value of the tickets blocks, but not the costof printing charges and stationery. Therefore, it is not in accordance with theRegulation 8(v) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. CCA Regulations, 1963. As per this regulationthe pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence, theCorporation is at liberty to recover the same from the pay of the said employee. Theimpugned order does not indicate the cost of the printing charges or value of thestationery. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are contrary to the Regulation 8 ofthe CCA Regulations, 1963. Therefore, it is set aside. However, the Corporation is atliberty to proceed further in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 07.04.2001 inaccordance with the regulations.
5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Date: 29[th] December 2004.BSB
_____________
K.C.BHANU,J.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Managing Director,Andhra Pradesh State Road transportCorporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Depot Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Manthani Depot, Manthani, Karimnagar District.
3. Two CD copies