APHC010440202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20678/2018 Between: B.M. RAO, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, CONDUCTOR(E.700261), ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BHIMAVARAM BUS DEPOT, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, WEST GODAVARI REGION, AT ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BHIMAVARAM BUS DEPOT, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the 3rd respondent herein in imposing the punishment of withholding of the petitioner annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative 2 effect and treating, the period of suspension as not on duty is bad arbitrary illegal by setting aside the punishment in Officer Order No. O1/227(1)/2017-BVRM dt. 17-04-2017 of the 3rd respondent herein and consequential Proc. dt. 12-09-2017 of 2nd respondent herein and direct the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner and treat the suspension period as on duty.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is working as an Assistant Depot Clerk in APSRTC. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner was imposed with a punishment of withholding the annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect on the charge of sleeping while on duty. It is submitted that the appeal and the review preferred by the Petitioner were rejected. Learned counsel would further submit that, in view of the disputes between the Security Head Guard and the Petitioner, he gave a false complaint against the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that, reduction of one increment with cumulative effect may have impact and create loss to the service of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would finally pray to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that, it is not the case that Respondent-Authorities have not followed the procedure under law. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that there are no circumstances warranting interference of this Court. 4. Considering the submissions made and on a bare perusal of the material placed on record, and the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner i.e., sleeping in the chair by putting his legs on the desk being the Assistant Depot 3 Clerk during office hours, this Court is of the view that giving such type of punishment of reduction of one annual increment with cumulative effect and not treating the suspension period as on duty, is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner. Hence, the matter requires indulgence of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by modifying the punishment of reduction of annual increment with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as on duty by giving any leave, as per the availability and his eligibility. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:10.04.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.20678 of 2018 Dt.10.04.2025 Dinesh