WP/23731/2004 of Sri K. Mohan Rao, Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, on 28 December 2004

O R D E R:

Challenging the orders passed by the 3[rd] respondent inProceedings No.02/95(60)2002-JRG dated 28.5.2004 andconfirmation in the appeal by the 2[nd] respondent in ProceedingsNo.Steno/19(26)/2004-Dvm:ELR dated 15.7.2004, the present writpetition is filed.

The petitioner is alleged to have involved in serious caseof cash and conduct irregularities while the petitioner was conductingthe vehicle No.AP9Z 7659 on 20.11.2002 on the route J.R. Gudem –Puliramannagudem as detected by the TTIs, HES/Peddapuram atstage No.7/8. His name was accordingly deleted from theselection/approved list and he was terminated from service. Then thepetitioner filed W.P. 10679 of 2003 wherein this court set aside thedismissal order on the ground that the services of the petitioner wereterminated without conducting domestic enquiry and also held that itis for the respondent-Management to proceed with the casualconductor in accordance with law. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated21.10.2003 was issued framing the following charges:

“1. For having failed to observe the ruleIssue & Start.

2. For having failed to issue tickets to 5passengers who are traveling fromKannapuram to Puliramannagudem ex-stages 6 to 8 even though you havecollected an amount of Rs.20/- from thepassengers at Rs.4/- per each passenger which amounts to misconduct in terms ofclause No.(x) of Reg.No.28 of APSRTCEmployees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”.

3. For having failed to collect the fare andissue a ticket to a lady passenger who istraveling from Merakagudem toPuliramannagudem ex.stages 7 to 8 whichamounts to misconduct in terms of clauseNo. (vi) (a) of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees(Conduct) 1963”.

The enquiry officer after conducting domestic enquirysubmitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinaryauthority having accepted the same, ordered for deletion of the nameof the petitioner from approved/selection list of the casual conductors.Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal butthe said appeal was rejected by the Divisional Manager videproceedings dated 15.7.2004. Thereafter, a review petition was filedby the petitioner before the Regional Manager, which was alsorejected. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

The challenge is made on the ground that the chargesheet has been issued at the behest of the Enquiry Officer who isclearly indicative of pre-disposed mind of the disciplinary authority.On 2.1.2004, the petitioner requested for production of passengerwitnesses for cross-examination. Without passing any orders, theEnquiry Officer went ahead with the enquiry on 11.2.2004. Therefore,the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice andhence the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that withoutaffording a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the passengerwitnesses the enquiry report has been passed and therefore itviolates the principles of natural justice.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentscontended that after giving reasonable opportunity the enquiry wasconducted and that the findings are not challenged on the groundthat they are perverse. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ It is settled law that the courts should not interfere withthe administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers fromprocedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the courtin the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. Thescope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision makingprocess and not the decision. In the decision making process if theauthority deciding the case has ignored vital evidence and therebyarrived at erroneous conclusion or has misconstrued the provisionsof the relevant Act or Regulations or misunderstood the scope of itsjurisdiction, the constitutional power under Article 226 can be invokedto set aside such errors and prevent gross injustice to the partycomplaining. In the affidavit nowhere it is stated that the order passedby the disciplinary authority is illegal or irrational or suffers fromprocedural impropriety. In the entire affidavit it is only stated that theprinciples of natural justice have been violated because therespondent-Management did not produce the passenger witnesses.As seen from the impugned proceedings, several opportunities weregiven to the petitioner and he wantonly not participated in the enquiryto defend himself. The question of summoning the passengers arisesonly after the evidence to be adduced on behalf of the respondent-Management was over. For that reason, he did not participate in theenquiry. The petitioner even refused to sign in the statement of one ofthe witnesses who conducted the check.

Conclusion

With regard to the non-production of passengers, it isobserved that the petitioner has to produce any passengers insupport of his claim but not the respondent-Management. Eventhough the petitioner availed the extension of time to enable himselfto produce some witnesses, he failed to do so. Therefore, theimpugned proceedings does not suffer from any legal infirmities so asto call for interference of this court. The remedy, if any, is elsewherebut not the proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India,where the power of judicial review is circumscribed.

Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it isaccordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.

___________________

K.C. Bhanu, J.

Date: --12—2004.

MVB.

// TRUE COPY //

..... REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To1 The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State RoadTransport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation, Eluru Division, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh3 The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,Jangareddy Gudem Depot, West Godavari District A.P.4 The Regional Manager, West Godavari Region, APSRTC, Eluru, WestGodavari District.

5. 2CD copies