WRIT PETITION 15262 of 2003 on 17 December 1996

ORDER:

This w i1 petitior-r is filed by the petitic,n:r seeking the foltowing r:li ,:f :

"i) dr [,:l ]aring the office order No,P3l1 J4t 2)/96-RM:WLdated 1'7.1.1.96, Consequential Even-Numbered r,f [ice order dated29.2.19')7 issued by third res rcndt:nt andProc Nc,.F \,'19(145)/2001-RM:WL dt 5.(,.2001 issued by theSccond R:slrondent; and also Proc.No.Pes.'ril l 9( 1 [1:i)/01-KR ]dated21.3.201)'-\ ir;sued by the fourth respondent, as ill,:g;al, rrbitrary setaside' th e s ru ne.

ii) C) rnsequently, direct the respondents lo restore theAnnlral Ir r:r'ement, deferred vide Office Order li,,.P:,/114(2)196-RM:WL r;tl.ed 17.12.1996 and treat the period ol :iustrension viz.from 18.5 l()96 to 17.12.1996 as'ON DUTY', artl pay the wageslor the sa id period, duly deducting the S ubsistel ce Allowance,already p: i cl; and

iii) Pi ss any such other order or orders as tlrir; Hcnble Courtmay det:r fit and proper in the circumstances of :h: crLse."

2. Hear<l tlli K.Vasudeva Reddy, lealned c()ursel for thepetitioner, a, d Sri Thoom Srinivas, lear red r;t:rnding counselappearing firr tLre respondent corporation.

3. Learr.e< [r: ]ounsel for the petitioner sub:nits thtrt the petitioner was apprrinfs i rs Lab Technician on 10.02. 1989 irr thr: respondent Corporat-ioir. .A. charge sheet was issued on 18.05 1996 solely

basing upon the Vigilance Security Officer's report dated18.03.1995 stating that the petitioner and one Mahadev havecollected a sum of Rs.150/- from Sri B.Kumar and Rs.200/- fromP.Sambaiah, driver candidates, for preparation of medicalexamination report during the month of January, 1996. Pursuantto the said charge sheet, the petitioner submitted an explanation on27.06.1996 denying the charges levelled against him. But, therespondent Corporation not satisfied with the explanation initiatedaction against the petitioner.

4. He further submits that during the course of enquiry,Sri B.Kumar and Sri P.Sambaiah have categorically deposedbefore the Enquiry Officer that they have not given any amount tothe petitioner at the time of medical test. The Enquiry Officerwithout taking into consideration of the statements given by theabove said persons submitted enquiry report and basing on thesaid report, the respondent Corporation passed the impugned orderon 17.12.1996 imposing punishment of withholding of one annualincrement for a period of two years and also treating the ]',- suspension lc i,r)d as'not on duty'. [Aggrie'red ][by ][the ][said ][order,]the petition,:r filed appeal [and appellate ][authority ][dir;missed ][the]said appeal or [1.he ][ground ]of [delay ]by [its ][or,Jer ][drt,:d ][C5.06.2001.]Thereafter, th , petitioner filed revier+, petition [br:fitre ][respondent]No.4 and th,: s itrne was also rejected on24.Uli.20Ol.

5 . lsarn(xl c ounsel for the petitioner veheme:'rtly contendedthat the respc-r rdent Corporation imposed [purlishnre ]rt [basing ][upon]the statementr ;,1iven by Sri B.Kumar and Sri [P.liztmbaiah during]the course of'preliminary enquiry. Though the sra.d 1wo [persons]have categor, r:i,illy deposed before the erLquiry officer duringenquiry tl-rat. t ery have not [given ]any amourtts to [tl)e ]lletitioner [at]the time of r,:<iical test, the enquiry officer witllout consideringthe said depo it.ions submitted report. Respondetl Nrt.3, withoutconsidering tL r: representation submitted by [r.he ][pt:trtioner ]and alsoevidence acldr rced before Enquiry Officer, [passed ]th,: [impugned]order dateC 1'.12.1996, consequential or<ler dati [20.02.1997]imposing prtn r;lLment of withholding of [one ][tncrelnont ][for ][a ][period]of two yearl i rrl treating [the ][suspension ][period ][atr ]['nor. ][on ][duty' ][is]

contrary to the law. He further contend that the respondentCorporation not fumished the enquiry report submitted by theenquiry officer and passed the impugned order and the same isviolative of principles of natural justice.enquiry officer and passed the impugned order and the same isviolative of principles of natural justice.

6. Per contra, leamed standing counsel appearing contra, leamed standing counsel appearing standing counsel appearing for thetherespondent Corporation submits that the offence committed by thepetitioner constitutes a serious misconduct and the respondentCorporation after following the due procedure as contemplatedunder TSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963 read withRegulation 9(2)(v) of the TSRTC Employees (CC&A)Regulations, 1967 initiated the proceedings against the petitionerand passed the impugned order on 17.12.1996 and, 20.02.1997after following the due process of law. The impugned orderpassed by the respondent No.3 dated 17.12.1996 and 2O.02.1997was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as revisionalauthority and the same are in accordance with law.

Per contra, leamed standing counsel appearing contra, leamed standing counsel appearing standing counsel appearing for thethe

7. I have considered the rival submissions made theby respective parties and perused the material available on record.

8. As per I [<: records, it is ciearly reveals that thr: pt:titioner wasappointed iLs L,ab Technician in the resporLdent [(.o4roration ]andwhile disc ra 6:ing his duties,a charge sheet [rvas, ]issued on18.05. 1996 r,r ttr the foltowing charge:

"For hav n13 collected a sum of Rs.150/- frorn Sri B.Kumar,E.6502').1 a rd Rs.200/- from Sri P.Sambaiah, E.(i501101, Drivercandida.te lbr preparation of medical exarninati rr report duringthe rnontl r,l Jan-96 which constitutes a seriour inis..conduct interms ol Reg.28(xv) of APSRTC Fmplo'ze,es (Conduct)Regulalio is, 1963 read with Regulation 9(2)(vi o1' APSRTCEmpiolce ;,'CC & A) Reg. 1967".

9.

The r:s [iondent ]Corporation has issue,C sus tr.nsion order on 18.05.1996 [yide ]Proceedings No.P3l114'2),'96-RM:WLsuspending I u.' petitioner pending enqu.ry. ['fht: ]petitionersubmitted zLn e xplanation to the charge sheet. [-['he ]respondentCorporatior t i1\/e not satisfied with the explanatio:r s ubmitted bythe petition:r irritiated the departmental enquiry lr., alrpointing anEnquiry O1fi'er. It further reveals from the rr:cotds that theEnquiry Of[-rc r:r submitted a report on 15.1] .199ri stal.ing that thecharge lev,:ll .x,. against the delinquent t:mpl.1 eeISproved.

Pursuant to the said enquiry officer finding, respondent No.3passed the impugned order on 17.12.1996 and consequential orderdated 20.02.1997 imposing punishment of withholding of oneincrement for a period of two years and treating the suspensionperiod as 'not on duty'. Aggrieved by the said order, thepetitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2 and the same wasdismissed on the ground of barred by limitation. Subsequently,the petitioner fited a review petition before respondent No.4 andthe same was also dismissed on 24.03.2OO3. The specificcontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that therespondent Corporation imposed punishment of withholding oneincrement for a period of two years and suspension period wastreated as 'not on duty' solely basing upon the statements of SriB.Kumar and Sri P.Sambaiah recorded during the course ofpreliminary enquiry. Though the said persons appeared before theEnquiry Officer during the course of regular enquiry andspecifically deposed that they have not given any amounts to thepetitioner, respondent Corporation ignoridg the depositions givenby the said persons, and the same is contrary to law.

10. Relelar t portion of the Enquiry Officer's report as follows:

10. Relelar t portion of the Enquiry Officer's report as follows:

During rl ,: enquiry Sri Sambaiah, Driver has stltr:d that Rs.50/-was giver t r the staff towards medical examinalion fr:e and aftercomplcti< r of medicai test while coming c,ut frcnr dir;pensary hepaid Rs,. [ 'i(./- who was standing near the [!ate ar;k rd ]tim to givesome aa1( u [-rt. ]During enquiry Sri B.Kumr, drivt:r has clarifiedthat thc a'ove delinquents conducted vision test v' ith the doctor.So it is clra: that the above two staff are workinll ivitir the doctoras nlen ti(nr:d in complaint, and collecte,l the zLbove amountsfrorL tlrr:clrivers at the time of medicz.l exanrination. Thestatemcn Ipiven by the doctor is an af terthou,iht and givencolluding*,ith the delinquents. In the explanati cr. of the chargesheet therlelinquents stated that, he rLeithe:' collected andexorbitanirmount than the requircd fee Rs.lJl- nor collectedRs. 150r-rrd Rs.200/- from the two drivers n,etrticned in thecharge sh,'e L. So it is clear that the docto.' asked hinr to collectthe meclir:Ll fee at the time of medical exanrinatior of drivers etc.Taking tJe advantage of the doctor instructic,ns they havecollecte dh,: above amount from the drivet's dur n;3 medical test.Later tl c1trave changed their version at th,: time of enquiry, thateligible r'e u,as also collected by our other s taff .n front ofmedical <0 icer and the same was handr:d ovel to him. SoexpLlnatirrr; submitted by them is an afterlhouglrt an<l they havenot prod,-,:c d any cvidence or any witner;s in ;upport of theirverst onL'l e both drivers have given their statt:n.Leni.s that theyhave giveL -he amount to the staff of dispensary, Wrrrangal are different [to ][the statements ][of preliminary enqulry']

I 1 . It [is ][very ][much relevant ][to ][mention ][here ][that ][the ][respondent]Corporation [has ][not ][produced ][any ][evidence ][to ][prove ][the ][charges]levelled [against the ][petitioner' ][The respondent ][Corporation ][passed]the impugned [order ][solely ][basing ][upon ][the ][statement ][recorded]during the [course ][of ][preliminary enquiry' without ][considering ][the]explanation [submitted ][by ][the ][petitioner especially ][ignoring ][the]depositions [recorded ][during ][the ][course ][of ][regular ][departmental]enqulry.

12. In [view of ][the ][above said reasons' ][the impugned order ][dated]lT.12.1996,consequentialorderdated20'O2'1997passedbyrespondent [No.3 ][withholding of ][one annual ][increment ][for ][a ][period]of two [years and ][treating the ][suspension ][period ][as ]['not ][on ][duty']which was [confirmed ][by ][respondent ][Nos'2 ][and ][4 ][on ][05'06'2001]aA Zq.nl.Z003 [respectively ][are liable ][to ][be ][set ][aside ][and]accordingly [set aside ][and the respondent ][Corporation ][is ][directed to]restore [the ][annual ][increments and ][treat. ][the ][suspension ][period ][as]'on duty' [and ][pay ][the ][wages ][for ][the ][said ][period ][by duly ][deducting]

:n

the subsrstins irllowancc, if not already paid, ro the petitioner within a peri<t i of three months from the date of r.e,)eil)t of a copyof th is order.of th is order.

13. With rhr r,Lbove directions, the writ perition i:; allowed. Noorder as to cos ts As a se qr ,:l , nriscellaneous applications, if rtnl pt,n,1in13, shall standclosed.

SD/-V.KAVITHAASSI!;'I'AN (t:T REGISTRARSECIlON OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1. The Regional li, arrager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad.

2. The Regionai lv :rrager, APSRTC, Warangal.

3. The Personnel .)f icer, Office of Regiona, Manager, ApSFll C, l,,lizamabad.

4. The Executive llir:ctor, APSRTC, (Hyderabad & Kzrrimnagi;r Zone), MahatmaGandhi Bus {ite lhn, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.Gandhi Bus {ite lhn, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.

5. One CC b SRI [( ]VASUDEVA REDDYAdvocate tCpUClREDDYAdvocate tCpUCl REDDYAdvocate tCpUCl6. One CC to S il [-l"iOOM ]SRtN|VAS, SC FOR ApSFTC. [OFUC]

7. Two CD Copils

BSKGJP,/

{,

HIGH COUFIT

DATED:20l0t6'2023

ORDER

WP.No.15262 of 2003

ALLOWING T.{E WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT CO IJTS

I

.l'j/',,',-:-. r!ijil\ ?tilli\lr

II