WP/15059/2008 of K. RAHEEMUDDIN, A.P. Vs THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC AND ANOTHER on 30 December 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for therespondents' Corporation

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of therespondents in imposing the punishment of reducing the [petitioner's]basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, andtreating the suspension period as 'not on duty', as bad, [arbitrar5r,]illega1, and disproportionate and consequently to set aside the Officeorder No. 02195(27l.199-DVK, dated ll.O2.2OOO [passed ]by l"trespondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a"Conductor" in the respondents' Corporation. On 01.08.1999 while hewas performing his duties en route Devarakonda to Pogilla, a checkwas conducted at Stage No.16 (Pogilla). During the check, theinspection staff of the Corporation noticed cash and ticketirregularities. Subsequently, a charge memo dated O 1.08. 1999 wasissued to the petitioner for the aforesaid lapses. Thereupon thepetitioner had submitted his explanation but the respondents'Corporation has not issued any reply. Subsequently, the respondents'

Corporation had issued charge sheet dated 24.09.1999 along withsuspension order stating that the petitioner failed to coilect ticket farefrom passengers. The petitioner submitted explanation on 29.O9.1999to the above said charge sheet. Later, the respondents, Corporationto the above said charge sheet. Later, the respondents, Corporationconducted an enquiry and passed final order No.O2/95(27) /99-DVK,dated 1 1.O2.2OOO by the l.t respondent imposing punishment ofwithholding of annual increment for a period of two years withcumulative effect and the period of suspension is treated as [,not ]onduff'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2"drespondent on O4.O7.2OO7. Later the 2"d respondent rejected hisappeal on 24.Oa.2OO7 as time barred, after lapse of seven years.Again the petitioner fi1ed a Review Petition on O1.09.2O07 before theRegional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda and the same was rejected.cumulative effect and the period of suspension is treated as [,not ]onduff'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2"drespondent on O4.O7.2OO7. Later the 2"d respondent rejected hisappeal on 24.Oa.2OO7 as time barred, after lapse of seven years.Again the petitioner fi1ed a Review Petition on O1.09.2O07 before theRegional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda and the same was rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contendedthat the Enquiry Of{icer without considering the explanationsubmitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, submitted the enquiryreport. He further contended that at the time of checking, twopassengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets andnot paid the bus fare. Hence, the ticket fare was collected from thepassengers by the TTI and also imposed a fine of Rs.50/-. He furthercontended that other two passengers also have given statements thatthey have boarded the top of the bus while the bus was in slow motionwhen the sheep cattle was crossing before the bus without the ./

I

knowiedge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and they havenot paid ticket fare and coilected the tickets from the petitioner. Theabove said statements of the passengers itself would establish thatnot paid ticket fare and coilected the tickets from the petitioner. Theabove said statements of the passengers itself would establish thatthere was no intention of misappropriation of any amounts and thepetitioner has not caused any loss to the respondents' Corporation.The lst respondent without considering the above said aspects passedthe impugned order imposing punishment withholding of twoincrements with cumulative effect, which is a major punishmentthough the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation whiledischarging his lawful duties as a Conductor.The lst respondent without considering the above said aspects passedthe impugned order imposing punishment withholding of twoincrements with cumulative effect, which is a major punishmentthough the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation whiledischarging his lawful duties as a Conductor.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that therespondents' Corporation after foilowing the due procedurecontemplated under the Regulations and after conducting enquiry byduly appointing an Enquiry Ofhcer and that apart considered theexplanation of the petitioner as well as the Iindings of the EnquiryOfficer, impugned order was passed on I1.O2.2OO0; and as such,there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by lst respondent.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placedon record, apparently, the petitioner had submitted his explanation tothe charge sheet for the charges levelled against him. The petitionerhas emphatically contended that at the time of checking, twopassengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets andnot paid the bus fare and other two passengers have also given statements that they have boarded the top of the bus while the buswas in slow motion when the sheep cattle was crossing before the buswithout the knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the busand further stated that they have not paid ticket fare and collected thetickets from the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitionerwas in slow motion when the sheep cattle was crossing before the buswithout the knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the busand further stated that they have not paid ticket fare and collected thetickets from the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitionerrightly contended that the respondents' Corporation withoutconsidering the statements given by the passengers and withoutproperly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to theconsidering the statements given by the passengers and withoutproperly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to thecharge sheet, passed the impugned order against the doctrine ofproportionality basing on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officerimposed punishment of withholding annual grade increments for aperiod of two yea-rs with cumulative effect. The respondents,proportionality basing on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officerimposed punishment of withholding annual grade increments for aperiod of two yea-rs with cumulative effect. The respondents,Corporation has failed to establish that the act of the petitioner wasintentional in not issuing the tickets to the passengers and he playeda fraud to cause colossal linalcial loss to the respondents'Corporation exchequer but it amounts to only negligence on the partof the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents' Corporationought not to have imposed punishment; namely, stoppage ofa fraud to cause colossal linalcial loss to the respondents'Corporation exchequer but it amounts to only negligence on the partof the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents' Corporationought not to have imposed punishment; namely, stoppage ofincrements for a period of two years with cumulative effect, which, inthe considered opinion of this Court is a major punishment.the considered opinion of this Court is a major punishment.

7 . Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase and also the length of service rendered by the petitioner, thisCourt deems it Iit and proper to modify the quantum of punishment ofCourt deems it Iit and proper to modify the quantum of punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for aperiod of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification ofpunishment sha11 have prospective effect only from the date of passingof this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim themonetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order.

8. Subject to the above modification, the writ petition is partlyallowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition,shall stand closed./ / ASSrsrAii#'G:SffiH//rRUE copy/t [[- ]]

ASSrsrAii#'G:SffiH//rRUE copy/t [[- ]]:r"+* oFFrcER

To 1. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Devarakonda Bus Depot' Nalgonda District'Telangana State.2 ih;D; chieifiamc [Manager, ][TSRTc, ][Nalgonda Region' Nalgonda']Telanqana State.a. o-ne ic [to ]snt ['i.vrr'KnrEsr/v4F^R4q'ldvocateloP-U^c-l ]. ^-4. one cc to [SRI ][eAbEAll ][sntNlvAs ][(sc ][FoR ][TSRTC) ][toPUCl]5. Two CD [CoPies]PSK.GtP W

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212022

ORDER

WP.No.15059 of 2008

*oYQ/*t4 sild)+..,....\t-I\c.o.,.C',J*ocii ALLOWING PARTLY THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS.

+ccp(ed\q-zo\Pr