APHC010249512012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27363/2012 Between: D.appa Rao, S/o Late Ramaswamy, ...PETITIONER AND The Managing Director Apsrtc and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) The Court made the following: 2 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 30.08.2011 and the subsequent orders dated 10.02.2012 as illegal. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner, while working as a driver, caused an accident on 20.03.2010, which resulted in damages to the bus and also to the divider grill. The respondents issued a Charge Sheet for the negligent driving of the petitioner which resulted in damages to the bus as well as to the divider grill, and the respondents had to incur a total cost of Rs.1,05,000/- for repairs. The C.C.No.245 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner, and the petitioner admitted his guilt and was fined Rs.300/- by the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. 3. The disciplinary authority proposed to impose the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect, besides recovering the cost of damages as per the rules in force, and treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, aggrieved by the orders passed by the disciplinary authority dated 25.01.2011. The appellate authority, vide proceedings dated 30.08.2011, modified the punishment and reduced the deferment of the petitioner’s annual increment for a period of eighteen months, which shall have the effect on his future increments. The petitioner filed a review before the revisional authority, and the revisional authority, vide proceedings dated 10.02.2012, rejected the case of the petitioner. 3 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition. That apart, it is submitted that the accident resulted in damages to the bus, in turn had incurred a cost of Rs.1,05,000/- for the respondent corporation. Though an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- was incurred which was initially proposed to recover the same from the salary of the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view and imposed only the punishment of deferment of his increments. 6. Recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner has not filed any I.D., before the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the punishment orders imposed by the disciplinary authority and modified by the appellate authority, it would have been ideal situation for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court, and the Labour Court would have been competent to decide on the proportionality of the punishment, the petitioner had failed to approach before the Labour Court, cannot agitate the same before this Court. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 28.01.2025 PNS