APHC010546182018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 25835/2018 Between: V.V.G Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “... to issue a writ or order more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the final order of the 3rd respondent No.01/2(2)/14-ATK(N), dated 24.11.2014 and Proceedings dated 14.6.2016 passed by 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Law and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Judgment in CC No.206 of 2014 dated 6.12.2014 and set aside the same in so far against to the petitioner in deferment of two years annual increments with cumulative effect on future increments besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments and further direct the respondents herein to restore deferred increments and treat the suspension period as on duty for all purposes with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 2 i) On the date of offence, Petitioner was working as a Driver in respondent No.3-Depot. He performed duty on 14.04.2014 from Atmakur to Bangalore with Sup.Luxury Bus bearing No.AP 26 Z 0014. While the Petitioner was performing return journey from Bangalore to Atmakur on 15.04.2014 at about 3.30 hours at Project Colony, Gopavaram, the bus met with a major accident resulting in death of 24 sheep. ii) A preliminary enquiry was conducted and the preliminary report reveals that due to high speed of the vehicle and failure of the driver in taking precautionary steps to avert the accident, resulted major accident and loss of 24 sheep. Basing on the said allegations, respondent No.3 issued charge sheet dated 19.05.2014 and simultaneously placed the petitioner under suspension and also framed two charges against him, which read as under: Charge -1: For being responsible for the major accident caused on 15.04.2014 at about 03.30 hrs. at Project Colony, Gopavaram, while performing duty on the route Bangalore to Atmakur with Sup.Lux.vehicle No.AP 26 Z 0014, resulting in the death 24 sheep, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix.a) and (xxix) of APSRTC Employees‟ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Charge – 2: For having failed to take pre-cautionary measures to avert the accident and to follow the instructions in this regard while performing the service which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees‟ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. iii) Questioning the action of the respondents in keeping him under suspension, Petitioner filed WP No.16332 of 2014 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 16.05.2014 directing the respondent authorities to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3 iv) Petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.06.2014 to the said Charges. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner appointing an Enquiry Officer. Relying upon the preliminary enquiry officer‟s report and the statement of the officers of the Department, Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 22.10.2024 holding that the charges are proved against the Petitioner. Consequently, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 15.11.2014 for deferment of annual increments for a period of two years besides treating the period of suspension as „Not on Duty‟ for the purposes of increments and by office order dated 18.11.2014 suspended him and posted to Atmakur (N) Depot. v) Criminal Case vide CC No.206 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Badvel filed against the Petitioner by the respondent authorities was ended in acquittal by Judgment dated 06.12.2014. vi) Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 19.11.2014 to the said show cause notice, but without considering the same, respondent No.3 passed final order dated 24.11.2014 confirming the proposed punishment imposed against the Petitioner. vi) The appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide Proceedings dated 14.06.2016. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, who appeared in virtual mode and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for respondents. Perused the material on record. 4 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the reason for causing the accident is due to failure of brakes to the bus but not due to negligence on the part of the petitioner. On earlier occasions, he made several complaints to the respondent authorities regarding poor condition of the brakes to the bus. Further, the respondent authorities nowhere denied the defect of the brakes to the bus and the complaints made by the bus drivers, who drove the bus. Learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities did not consider the explanation of the petitioner and without examining the eye witnesses to the incident and without following due process of law, came to the conclusion that the charges are proved and gave report. Learned counsel would submit that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged act of mis-conduct. Further, during pendency of the enquiry, Petitioner retired from service in the year 2019. Finally, prays to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 5. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus (i.e, Petitioner). The authorities have rightly imposed the punishment for the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Finally, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material on record, petitioner was the driver of the bus at the relevant point of time and while he was discharging duties, the accident was occurred due to which 24 sheep died. 5 The record shows that the petitioner has made complaints regarding the working condition of the brakes of the bus to the authorities. 7. Be that as it may, a cursory look at the material on record, Petitioner stated in his explanation that the drivers of the bus made several complaints about poor working condition of the brakes to the bus to the respondent authorities. If the brakes worked properly, the alleged accident would not have been occurred. The fact remains that the petitioner retired from service in the year 2019. It appears that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 8. In that view, it is apposite to modify the order of the respondent No.3 dated 24.11.2014 with regard to punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect to that of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as „on duty‟. In this regard, respondent authorities are directed to pass consequential proceedings forthwith to enable the Petitioner to get his retirement and other benefits as per his entitlement. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 25835 of 2018 08.04.2025 Mjl /*