IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADEShU^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010322092018 .1 V f- A TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH day OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI WRIT PETITION NO: 14884 OF 2ni« PRATAP^ Between: G. Ch.Babu, E.752712, APSRTC Conductor, S/o, Kondala Rao, aged 40 years, Anakapally Depot, R/o. Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER AND rep by its Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada 1. The A. P. S. R. T. C, Krishna District, AP. 2. The Regional Manager A. P. s. R, T. C, Visakhapatnam Region Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 3. The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager Urban, at , AP. O/o Regional Manager, A. P.S. R.T. C., Visakhapatnam Region, at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, AP. 4. The Depot Manager, A. P. S. Dist., AP. 5. The Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam Dist., AP. R- T. C, Waltair Depot, Visakhapatnam A. P. S. R. T. C, Anakapally Depot, ...RESPONDENTS praying that in the the High Court may be more particularly one in the nature of of the Depot Manager in issuing the- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to issue an order or direction writ of mandamus declaring the action Removal Proc. No. 02/95(34)/2015-WTR, dt.6- 11-2016, which was modified by the Appellate authority by imposing the punishment of Reducing by Two incremental stages vide Proc No basic pay PA/19( 134)2015-VSP( U), Dt 14-12-2015, besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments, in so far as it went against to the petitioner as illegal, Which was confirmed by the 2 19(51)16 RM-VSP, Dt 29-12-2017, nd respondent in his proc No. PA/ as capricious, unjust and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to herein to pay the deducted increments in pursuance of the Orders Dt 14-12-2015 with arrears forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 201 ft Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Suspend the punishment orders dated.14.12.2016 in so far as if wenf against to to the petitioner by directing the increments in pursuance of the impugned orders forthwith the Writ Petition. respondents herein to pay the deducted pending disposal of Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI S. M. SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010322092018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, fhE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 14884/2018 Between: G.CH.BABU, E.752712, APSRTC CONDUCTOR, S/0. KONDALA RAO, AGED 40 YEARS VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ANAKAPALLY DEPOT, R/0. NARSIPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE APSRTC, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP. 2.THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC, VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, AT VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 3 THE DY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER URBAN, 0/0 REGIONAL VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, AT MANAGER, A. P.S. R.T. C. VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 4.THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, WALTAIR DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST , AP. 5.THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, ANAKAPALLY DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST., AP. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VIN0D KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution the following prayer; of India with ‘ .....writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Depot Managerin issuing the Remca/ Proc. A/o. 0^95(34)/2015-WTR, dtS- 11-2016, which was modified by the Appellate authority by imposing the punishment of Reducing basic pay by Two incremental stages vide Proc No. PA/19( 134)2015-VSP( U), Dt 14-12- 2015, besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of wh^i "^^''^'^^rits, in so far as it went against to the petitioner as illegal ^ respondent In his pro^ No. PA/ 19(51)16 RM- VbP, Dt 29-12-2017, as capricious, unjust and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to herein to pay the deducted increments In pursuance of the Orders Dt 14-12- 2015-with arrears forthwith.” 2. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner i Sri Vinod IS working as a Conductor in Respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner was removed from service on the allegation that he failed to issue proper tickets to a passenger. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority reinstated the Petitioner by imposing the punishment of reducing the basic pay by two incremental stages besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments and the same was confirmed by Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the explanation given by the Petitioner stating that the to whom the Petitioner alleged to have issued less ticket passenger was a retired 3 «[:■ APSRTC employee and as such he is entitled to rebate from the fare. The said explanation was not considered by Respondent No.4. Learned counsel would finally submit that even without monetary benefit for the relevant period, the suspension period may be considered as on duty. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent - Corporation would submit that the scope of this Court to interfere in this type of matters is very limited. On conducting enquiry, the Petitioner was removed from service and subsequently, the Appellate Authority reinstated the Petitioner into service by imposing the punishment of reducing two increments with cumulative effect. It is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve any further concession before this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, it is the contention of the Petitioner that he had given concession ticket to a passenger who is a retired employee of APSRTC and the same has not been considered by the Respondent-Authorities and thereby imposed punishment to him. Nothing is attributed against the Petitioner that with a malafide intention he had given less ticket to the passenger. In that 4. \ ■ 5. view, awarding punishment of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect, and treating the suspension period as not on duty, is disproportionate Hence, the matter requires to the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner. indulgence of this Court. 4 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by modifying the punishment of two annual increments with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect. However, the Petitioner is not entitled to any arrears of increment for the relevant period. Respondents are also directed to consider the suspension period of the Petitioner as on duty, by adjusting the same with any leave as per the availability and eligibility of the Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhlraj Singh Thakur on this Tuesday, Twenty Fourth day of June, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6Tr^J0FFICER SE To, 1. The Managing Director, A. P. S. R. T. C., PNBS, Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP. 2. The Regional Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C., Visakhapatnam Region, at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, AP. 3. The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager Urban, O/o Regional Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C., Visakhapatnam Region, at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, AP. 4. The Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C., Waltair Depot, Visakhapatnam Dist., AP. 5. The Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C., Anakapally Depot, Visakhapatnam Dist., AP. 6. One CC to Sri S. M. Subhan, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, SC for APSRTC [OPUC 8. Three CD Copies ssb m HIGH COURT DATED:24/06/2025 ORDER WP No.14884 of 2018 partly allowing the w.p. without COSTS