APHC010546642013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1386/2013 BETWEEN: P.venkateswara Rao S/o Chintaiah, ...Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport and Others ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s: “….pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.PA/19(04)/2011-RM/K dated 25.04.2011 of the 3rd respondent to the extent of imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with permanent effect as a measure of punishment and also treating the intervening period from the date of absence till reporting for duty on reinstatement as not on duty for all purposes is, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to APSRTC Employees’ (Leave) Regulations, 1963, contrary to law, discriminatory, and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of Constitution of India, set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the basic pay of the petitioner duly treating the intervening period as on duty for all purposes with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders…… 2. The petitioner was removed from service on 08.04.2010 and the petitioner herein filed statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Krishna Region, Vijayawada, on 16.07.2010 and the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 29.07.2010. 3 3. Assailing the order of appellate authority in not considering the case of the writ petitioner a review petition has been filed before 3rd respondent-Regional Manager APSRTC Krishna. The Regional Manager subsequently granted the review petition submitted by the petitioner, setting aside the removal order and imposed a punishment of reducing the pay by two incremental stages with permanent effect, as indicated in the order dated 25-04-2011. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not able to submit his sick certificate as his fever was converted as Chikungunya and his family members taken him to Government Hospital, where he has taken treatment and produced the copies of sick certificate issued by the APSRTC Dispensary and Professor and Civil Surgeon, GGH, Vijayawada, and the Depot Manager has not considered the certificates issued by the Medical Officer from 18.09.2009 to 26.09.2009 and further voiced that the absence of the petitioner cannot be treated as unauthorized absence as the petitioner intimated that he was sick. 5. Furthermore the counsel for the petitioner would submit that the punishment, as reduced by the reviewing authority about stoppage of two increments permanently, since such reduction was of a permanent nature, it amounted to reduction in pay of the petitioner and therefore, it was not less than a major punishment from the view point of the 4 petitioner and it cause severe financial loss, hence prayed to take a lenient view and prayed to modify the order. 6. Now, it has to be considered whether this is a fit case to direct to modify the order of imposing penalty of reduction of two annual increments levelled against the petitioner. So far as the submission about reduction of the penalty, as imposed by the review authority, is concerned, it appears that the review authority has already taken a lenient view by setting aside the removal order reducing the punishment to the extent of stoppage of two increments permanently. 7. When this Court posed a question indicating that the review authority has already granted substantial relief, then the counsel for the petitioner proposed that the petitioner be allowed to submit a new representation to the relevant authority for a reconsideration of his case regarding a reduction of pay of two annual increments permanently. In response, the counsel for the respondent-RTC indicated that if the Court instructs the respondents, the matter would be handled in accordance with law after submitting such representation by the petitioner. 8. This Court agrees with the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner and this Court directs the petitioner herein to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On receipt of such representation 5 of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent authority is directed to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner herein within a period of six weeks therefrom. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 25.04.2025 Harin 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 119 WRIT PETITION No. 1386 of 2013 Date 25.04.2025 Harin