Telangana High Court
WP/27620/2005 of S. Pulla Rao, Vs The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, on 27 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27620 of 2005 Date:27.12.2005 S.Pulla Rao. -----------Petitioner The Divisional Manger and others. -------------Respondents ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in APSRTC. On 02.08.2004, when he was conducting the bus from Suryapet to
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27620 of 2005
Date:27.12.2005
S.Pulla Rao.
The Divisional Manger and others.
-----------Petitioner
-------------Respondents
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 petitioner is employed as a Conductor in APSRTC. On 02.08.2004, whenhe was conducting the bus from Suryapet to Torrur, a check was exercised andit was found that the petitioner issued a ticket with denomination of Rs.13/-instead of Rs.14/-. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 13.08.2004. On aconsideration of the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who, inturn, submitted a report on 02.11.2004. The Depot Manager, 2[nd] respondentherein, passed an order, dated 23.11.2004, imposing the punishment ofstoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and treating the period ofsuspension as ‘not on duty’. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2[nd]respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1[st] respondent. Theappeal was partly allowed by the 1[st] respondent through his order, dated14.06.2005. The punishment was reduced to the one of stoppage of oneincrement with cumulative effect. The manner in which the period of suspensionshall be treated, was kept intact. Hence, this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counselfor the respondents.
The only allegation against the petitioner is that he collected a sum of Rs.20/-from a passenger at a stage and issued a ticket with denomination of Rs.13/-instead of Rs.14/-. The balance to be paid to the petitioner was endorsed on thereverse of the ticket. The lapse on the part of the petitioner was that he issued a ticket with lesser denomination of Rs.1/-. The facts themselves disclose thatthere was absolutely no intention on the part of the petitioner to misappropriatethe amount. The minor negligence, obviously due to rush of work in issuing aticket of lesser denomination, that too of Rs.1/-, must not have resulted in sucha severe punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect andtreatment of the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’.
A perusal of the order passed by the 1[st] respondent discloses that he virtuallygave clean chit to the petitioner, after discussing the matter at length. However,he reduced the punishment only to the one of stoppage of one increment withcumulative effect.
The stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would have very severe andadverse effect on the pay structure of the petitioner for the rest of his service.For this purpose, there must exist necessary factual background. In theultimate analysis, the loss suffered by the Corporation was only Rs.1/-.However, the monetory loss caused to the petitioner, on account of thepunishment, runs to several thousands of rupees. Therefore, this Court is of theview that the hardship caused to the petitioner can be mitigated by treating thepunishment as the one of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effectand denying the benefit of the deferential amount up to the date of this order.
Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the order dated23.11.2004, passed by the 2[nd] respondent shall be modified to the one ofstoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The direction as to themanner in which the period of suspension shall be treated, would remain as itis. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________
27.12.2005