1 APHC010151792007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21163/2007 Between: 1. T.SREENIVASULU, KURNOOL DIST., S/O.PULLAIAH CONDUCTOR, R/O.YEMMIGANUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VCMD APSRTC HYD, 2 OTHERS, DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE APSRTC REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGERQ/, DY. CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, KURNOOL DIVISION AT KURNOOL. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, YEMMIGANUR DEPOT, YEMMIGANUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in 3rd respondent in imposing the punishment of pay reduction by two incremental stages permanently besides treating the suspension period as Not On Duty for the purpose of leave and increments vide Proc. No. 02/95(136)/03-YMG, dt. 20.11.2003, which was modified by the appellate authority to the effect of deferment of annual increment when next falls due for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide proc.No.ST/19(25)/2004-DVM-Q, dt.7.2.2004 on the allegation of not punching the ticket properly, as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. 2 I.A.NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 27426 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date of hearing of this writ petition and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. W V S RAJESWARI 2. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following order: Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the proceedings dated 07.02.2004 passed by the Divisional Manager, Kurnool whereby punishment of deferment of annual increment when next falls due for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing counsel for APSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, while working as a conductor, at Yemmiganur Depot, the petitioner was found to have charge sheeted on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities on route Halvi to Yemmiganur, to which the petitioner had submitted an explanation. That upon, having not satisfied with the said explanation of the petitioner, the Depot Manager, 3 Yemmiganur issued a final order dated 20.11.2003 imposing punishment of pay reduction by two incremental stages permanently besides treating the suspension period as “Not on Duty” for the purpose of Leaves and Increments. That in appeal, the 2nd respondent-Divisional Manager, Kurnool (appellate authority) modified as deferment of Annual increment when next falls for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 07.02.2004. He further submitted that the said punishment was disproportionate to the charges and was imposed without providing any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and as such the impugned proceedings are wholly unsustainable and issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel while justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that the Depot Manager, Yemmiganur and the Divisional Manager, Kurnool have rightly held that the petitioner had failed in discharging his duties and also the petitioner was provided with the reasonable opportunity and the same could be the only conclusion to be arrived basing on the material available on record. He further submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the irregularity committed by him, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities needs no interference. Further the petitioner cannot claim any monetary benefits. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. The petitioner, on 29.08.2003, while working as a conductor to the bus running from Halvi to Yemmiganur, had issued tickets worth Rs.19/- (Rs.9/- towards his ticket and Rs.10/- towards luggage fare) to a passenger but forgot to punch on luggage ticket by mistake and committed an irregularity. He was charge sheeted with an allegation of cash and ticket irregularity and being unsatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Depot manager had issued final order dated 20.11.2003 imposing punishment of pay reduction by two incremental stages permanently besides treating the suspension period as “Not on Duty” for the purpose of Leaves and Increments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached appellate authority and after careful consideration of the entire material on record, the appellate was pleased to modify the punishment to that of deferment of Annual increment when next falls for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 07.02.2004. Assailing the said proceedings, the present writ petition was filed. 7. It is apt to mention here that the conductor, in this case the Writ Petitioner, is bound with the responsibility to collect the correct fare from the passenger, issue the ticket by punching it, for luggage as well and remit the same amount into the Respondent corporation credit. The mandatory rules stipulate that, the petitioner should complete the issuance of tickets correctly at the boarding point itself, then move the bus for further journey and close the 5 S.R. before the arrival of next fare stage. But, in the instant case the Writ Petitioner grossly failed in discharging his duties. Failing to punch the tickets after collecting the amount from the passenger constitutes misconduct and the petitioner was found guilty of breaching the trust of the Respondent Corporation. 8. However, the punishment imposed on the petitioner of deferment of annual increment when next falls for a period of two years with cumulative effect seems to be a little bit harsh and disproportionate to the irregularity committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the same needs modification and the ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is modified to that of deferment of annual increment when next falls for a period of two years without cumulative effect. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by modifying the punishment imposed by the appellate authority vide impugned orders dated 07.02.2004 to that of deferment of annual increment when next falls for a period of two years without cumulative effect, without any monetary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS