WP/25667/1997 of K.Prasad, Vs The Managing Director, on 26 December 2005

Order:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedingsNo.Steno/27(19)/96-RM’C’, dated 10.03.1996 of respondent No.3-Deputy ChiefTraffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah Region, as illegal and arbitrary and forconsequential direction to the respondents to pay the increments to the petitionerwith effect from 04.04.1991and all the wages, arrears of leave and increments witheffect from 30.05.1991.

The petitioner, working as driver in respondents Corporation, was chargesheeted/suspended for the irregularities committed by him i.e., he having performedthree hours service from Badvel to Kothacheruvu service with vehicle bearing No.AAZ 6282 on 24.03.1991 failed to hand over the said vehicle to the link driver with log sheet and for having responsible for the missing of the log sheet of the abovevehicle and for having responsible for the cancellation of 60 KMs to the abovevehicle. On the said irregularities, the Assistant Manager (E), Cuddapah, hasconducted a domestic enquiry into the matter and submitted his report. Onconsideration of the said report, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Badvel, lifted thesuspension order of the petitioner and issued order-cum-show cause notice, videproceedings No.01/118(2)/91-BDVL, dated 18.06.1991, ordering for postponementof two annual increments and calling for explanation as to why the period ofsuspension should not be treated as “not on duty”. Against the said orders, thepetitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3. The respondent No.3-DeputyChief Traffic Manager, vide proceedings No. STE No./27(10)/96-RM (C ), dated10.03.1996, modified the order dated 18.06.1991 and reduced the punishment tothat of “postponement of annual increment for one year without cumulative effect”. Asagainst the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel forrespondents Corporation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the punishment imposed onthe petitioner is disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. The onlyquestion remains to be answered is whether the punishment imposed by theappellate authority is disproportionate to the charge leveled against the petitioner,inasmuch as the petitioner is not challenging the enquiry proceedings. TheAppellate Authority on reconsideration of the matter, taking a lenient view hasreduced the punishment from postponement of increments for two years withcumulative effect to that of postponement of increment for one year withoutcumulative effect. The same cannot be said to be disproportionate to the chargesleveled against the petitioner and no exception can be taken thereto by this Court,more so having regard to the judgment of the apex Court in Regional Manager,Rajasthan SRTC v. Sohan Lal, wherein it was held that it is not within the normaljurisdiction of the superior courts to interfere with the quantum of sentence imposedby the disciplinary authority, unless it is shown that the sentence imposed is whollydisproportionate to the misconduct proved. The petitioner has not made out anyground to show that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority isdisproportionate to the proved misconduct.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.

Dated: 26.12.2005

Tvk/nsr

__________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.