APHC010262342012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23519/2012 Between: P.v.v. Mohan, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Depot Manager Apsrtc ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) The Court made the following Order: The petitioners are challenging the proceedings of recovery dated 06.03.2012. 2. The respondents have passed the said proceedings, whereby the respondent proposed to recover the excess salary drawn by the employees on account of the payments received from the respondent, despite availing excess leaves beyond their eligibility. 3. This Court, vide proceedings dated 01.08.2012, granted a stay of recovery. 2 4. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the respondent proposed to recover the alleged excess salary drawn by the petitioners in twenty installments. 5. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent submits that during the audit conducted by the respondent, seventeen employees of the Maddilapalem Depot were found to have availed leaves beyond their entitlements. On account of the same, it was proposed to recover the excess salary paid to the said employees, including the petitioner. The 1st petitioner is alleged to have taken 1,607 days of leave up to 30.12.2011, apart from availing casual leave and encashing 62 days of earned leave up to 1999. In the case of 2nd petitioner, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the 2nd petitioner had taken 800 days of leave up to 30.12.2011, apart from encashing 181 days of earned leave up to year 2005. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as conductors in the respondent corporation in the year 1989 and the alleged audit was conducted in 2011, with proceedings issued in 2012. The impugned proceedings were not clearly and explicitly prepared to reflect the excess leaves availed by the petitioners and 3 the alleged excess amounts drawn by the petitioners. The impugned proceedings are not backed by any other material to substantiate the claim of the respondent. 7. In view of the ambiguous orders passed by the respondent in the proceedings dated 06.03.2012, the respondent cannot be permitted to recover any amounts. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the interim orders granted by this Court and the impugned proceedings are set aside. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 27.01.2025 NKA 4 260 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.23519 of 2012 Date: 27.01.2025 NKA