1 APHC010279412007 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: 17731/2007 Between: 1. K.G.P RAO, PARVATHIPURAM DEPOT S/O SAMBAIAH R/O PARAVATHIPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APSRTC REPBY ITS VC 2 OTHERS, BUS BHAVAN-MUSHIRABAD- HYDERABAD. 2. THE APSRTC REPBY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, PARVATHIPURAM, VIZAINAGARAM DISTRICT. ...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 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 1 year with cumulative effect without issuing any show cause notice vide Proc. No. 02/62(95)/93-PPM dt 10-2-1994 which is illegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to law and as such liable to be set aside the interest of justice with a consequential direction to pay arrears of differed increments and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 22731 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 fix an early date of hearing of the WP and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C APPAIAH SHARMA The Court made the following order: Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the proceedings dated 10.02.1994 issued by the 3rd respondent-Depot Manager wherein punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarlada Vinod Kumar, 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 Parvathipuram Depot, the petitioner was charge sheeted on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities to which the petitioner had submitted an explanation. He further submitted that after conducting an enquiry, the disciplinary authority-Depot Manager issued a final order-cum-show notice dated 10.02.1994 imposing punishment of deferment of one annual increment besides treating the suspension period as “Not on Duty” for the purpose of Leaves and wages, which was further confirmed by appellate and revisional authorities. He further contended that the impugned proceedings dated 10.02.1994 was issued without any proper prior show cause notice and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, as such the impugned proceedings are wholly unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 3 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel while justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that the authorities have rightly held that the petitioner had failed in discharging his duties and also the petitioner was provided opportunity to offer his explanation. 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. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. The petitioner while working as bus conductor had committed cash and ticket irregularity and charge sheet was issued to which the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Based on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment vide impugned proceedings dated 10.02.1994 which was further confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that without issuing any prior show cause, the authorities has straight away issued final order-cum-show cause notice dated 10.02.1994 and further the appellate and revisional authorities have also not considered the petitioner’s explanation while confirming the said punishment. 7. The said proceedings of the appellate and revisional authorities were not placed on record except self serving statement that they have also confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Further the 4 explanation which is said to have submitted by the petitioner was also not placed on record. In the absence of the same, this Court cannot decide the method and manner in which they have dealt the case. 8. As could be culled out, based on the facts and material available on record, this Court has to decide whether the punishment was imposed on the petitioner is appropriate or not. 9. The punishment imposed on the petitioner of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year 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 for a period of one year without cumulative effect. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by modifying the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority vide impugned orders dated 10.02.1994 to that of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year 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