1 APHC010311522018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 14153/2018 Between: K Vallabha Rao ...PETITIONER AND Apsrtc and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) 2. . The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order made by the Respondent No.4 vide order dated 09.08.2017 made in I.D.No.37 of 2013 and declare that dismissal of the same as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and vitiated by material irregularities without conducting any detailed enquiry apart from violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 vide 2 No.PA/20(15)/2006- DVM/KKD dated 01.06.2006 and the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.3 vide No.PA/95(82)/05-ELSM dated 20.02.2006 and pass such other order or orders…...” 2. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is alleged against the petitioner that there are some irregularities in issuing tickets being a Conductor. He was awarded punishment with reduction of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal, without appreciating the material on record in ready prospective, simply affirmed the orders passed by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner may get a small amount of pension by the time he is retired. The reduction of two increments with cumulative effect might have great impact and affect his livelihood after retirement. Learned counsel would finally submit that the impugned order may be set aside atleast by modifying the punishment imposed against the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the indulgence of this Court is not warranted in the present petition. Learned Industrial Tribunal has appreciated the facts and law in ready prospective and affirmed the punishment. The punishment is proportioned to the wrong committed by the 3 petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact of making allegations against the petitioner, later conducting enquiry and found him guilty and imposing him punishment of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect. As seen from the record, the Industrial Tribunal did not choose to interfere in the punishment awarded to the petitioner, no specific reasons assigned in the impugned order, but just simply confirmed the order passed by the respondent authorities imposing punishment of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect. As rightly put by learned counsel for the petitioner, it may have impact on the little amount of pension the petitioner may get, since he retired from service. The record further shows in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the punishment which was awarded to the petitioner does not commensurate with the alleged act of misconduct. 6. In that view, the interference by this Court is required while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is apposite to allow the writ petition partly modifying the punishment of “reduction of two increments with cumulative effect” as “reduction of two increments without cumulative effect”. The respondent authorities are directed to release the difference of amount and also fix the pension as per the governing rules and 4 law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 13.03.2025 ARR 5 445 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 14153/2018 Dt.13.03.2025 ARR