APHC010258782012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10092/2012 Between: G.Rama Rao ...PETITIONER AND The Apsrtc Rep By Its Vice Chairman Managing Director and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following Order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 22.03.2010, whereby the respondents imposed punishment of withholding annual increments for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as “Not on Duty” for the purpose of “Leave and Increments”. 2. The petitioner while working as a Driver was operating the ticket issuing machine and was charged with cash and ticket irregularity on 15.04.2009. The petitioner was issued an order of suspension dated 20.04.2009 after issuance of a charge memo. The petitioner submitted his explanation on WP.No.10092 of 2012 24.04.2009 and a domestic enquiry was conducted on 06.06.2009. The order of suspension was lifted vide proceedings dated 11.06.2009. A show cause notice was issued on 07.07.2009 to submit his explanation for the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.08.2009. The respondents the issued impugned proceedings dated 22.03.2010. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper enquiry was conducted and that the punishment of differement of annual increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment which could not have issued without conducting a detailed enquiry that apart the disciplinary authority has also imposed further punishment of treating the suspension period as “Not on Duty” for the purpose of “Leave and Increments” the same could have cascading the effect on service benefits more particularly the leave and increments. 4. The respondents in their counter submit that the petitioner failed to collect a fair to travel from L.B.Nagar to Vijayawada while operating the ticket issuing machine which caused financial loss to the corporation. It is submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Manager (Traffic) WP.No.10092 of 2012 and the punishment was imposed only after issuing a show cause notice. The petitioner also filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, which was rejected and that the petitioner was also involved in cash and ticket irregularity subsequently. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent and after perusal of the record the impugned proceedings are issued without conducting a detailed enquiry and without giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner, that apart the imposing of penalty of withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect and also treating the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments cannot be sustained. 6. Considering the same, this Court is inclined to modify the impugned proceedings to the effect of withholding of annual increment for a period of one year shall not have effect on future increments. Further the punishment with respect to treating the suspension period as not in duty for the purpose of leave and increments shall stand removed from the impugned proceedings. WP.No.10092 of 2012 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in-part. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM WP.No.10092 of 2012 169 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.10092 of 2012 Date: 24.02.2025 KGM