APHC010216772018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 9544/2018 Between: 1. T.RAMASITA, W/O LATE G.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, E.NO.369867, CONDUCTOR, THIRUVURU DEPOT, KRISHNA DISTRICT. STATE OF A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE A P S R T C, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, RTC HOUSE, NTR ADMINISTRATION BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, STATE OF A.P. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC., KRISHNA REGION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGERMTM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C, TIRUVURU DEPOT, THIRUVURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B GEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No.PA/19(30)/2016-RM/K dt.3.3.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent herein to the extent aggrieved where under the 2nd Respondent has imposed penalty of deferment of increments for a period of two years 2 with effect on future increments as illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Ms.B.Geeta, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is working as a Conductor in APSRTC. While so, the Respondent-Authorities have initiated disciplinary enquiry against her on the allegation of reissuance of a ticket worth Rs.7/- and removed the Petitioner from service. Learned counsel would further submit that, subsequently, the Petitioner has preferred an appeal before Respondent No.2, wherein, Respondent No.2 modified the punishment from removal to reduction of two annual future increments. Learned counsel would further submit that the punishment which was awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Even if the alleged misconduct is taken as true, it is only a mistake on the part of the Petitioner, but nothing is substantiated that, with a malafide intention the Petitioner has done the said act. Learned counsel would further submit that, reduction of two increments with cumulative effect may have impact and create loss to the service of the Petitioner as a Conductor. Learned counsel would finally pray to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order to the effect of imposing penalty of two increments with cumulative effect. 3. Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that, it is not the case that Respondent-Authorities have not followed the procedure under law. Respondent No.2 has rightly interfered and modified the punishment awarded against the Petitioner since it is 3 disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that there are no grounds to interfere. It is submitted that the record shows that the Petitioner has threatened the Authorities at the time of the inspection by saying that she may jump from the bus and commit suicide. Learned Standing Counsel finally submits that, viewed from any angle, there are no circumstances warranting interference of this Court. 4. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, nothing is attributed against the Petitioner that, with a malafide intention she has reissued the ticket worth Rs.7/-. It appears, it may be a human mistake. In that view, awarding punishment of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect, is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner. Hence, the matter requires indulgence of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by modifying the punishment of two annual increments with cumulative effect to non-cumulative effect. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.03.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.9544 of 2018 Dt.28.03.2025 Dinesh