APHC010018472017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4146/2017 Between: P.v.ramana Rao ...PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition has been instituted by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief:- “……to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Appeal Order No.PA/19(155)/08-Dy.CTM (V) dated 27.01.2009 of the 3rd Respondent to the extent of imposing the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two years which shall have effect on future increments duly treating the period of removal as not 2 on duty for all purposes as confirmed by the 2nd Respondent vide Revision Order dated 25.04.2014 is unjust, contrary to the A.P.S.R.T.C Employees’ (CC&A) Regulations, 1967 and Circular No.PD-14/1977-78 dated 05.05.1977, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the same to that extent and consequently direct the Respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner duly restoring the annual increments and treating the period of removal as on duty for all purposes in the interest of justice….” 2. Through the instant writ petition, proceedings No.PA/19(155)/08- DY.CTM(V) dated 27.01.2009 of the 3rd respondent assailed to the extent of deferment of annual increment for two years, which shall have effect on the petitioner’s future increments and also treating the removal period as not on duty for all purposes, which was affirmed by the 2nd respondent revisional authority by its orders dated 25.04.2014 against the petitioner., are being challenged before this Court. 3. As stated by the petitioner, he joined the 1st respondent Corporation as a Driver on 02.06.1996. Consequently, his service was regularized on 01.08.1997. It is stated that the petitioner was removed from the 1st respondent Corporation vide order No.M1/2(11)/08-GVPT-II dated 05.12.2008 passed by the 4th respondent, on the premise that the petitioner failed to take more precautionary measures and failed to avert an accident, which resulted to the death of the cyclist. 3 4. Challenging the said removal orders dated 05.12.2008, the petitioner carried the matter by way of an appeal to the 3rd respondent. The appellate authority, taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances and also considering the nature of the accident, modified the removal orders vide order No.PA/19(155)/08-DY.CTMV(V)dated 27.01.2009, whereby and whereunder, reinstated the petitioner into service, duly imposing the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two years, which shall have effect on future increments duly treating the period of removal as not on duty for all purposes. 5. It is further stated by the petitioner that, the above said appellate authority orders were confirmed by the 2nd Respondent /Revisional authority through its orders dated 24.04.2014. It is also stated by the petitioner that, he joined the duty on reinstatement in February, 2010. It is also submitted that the petitioner was undergone criminal proceedings due to very same cyclist death, in C.C No.625 of 2008 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. The learned Single Judge after trail acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 24.01.2011. The petitioner also contended that the 3rd respondent / appellate authority order dated 27.01.2009 is liable to be set-aside as it is inequitable amounts to double punishment. 4 6. The respondents Corporation filed its counter, admitting the date on which the petitioner joined as a Driver in the respondents Corporation and also not disputing the factum of imposing the removal orders. The Corporation also stated that about the modification orders of the Appellate authority orders as well as confirmed by the revisional authority orders against the petitioner are true and correct. 7. The respondents Corporation further stated that the 3rd respondent/appellate authority, by perceiving all the aspects, had taken a lenient view and passed the modification orders dated 27.01.2009. It is also further asserted that the appellate authority orders are backed by cogent and sound reasoning. Thus, the 2nd respondent/revisional authority has confirmed the same. The sum and substance of the respondents’ counter is that there are no violation of rules in vogue and orders under challenge not liable to be altered by this court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. This Court has gone through the material on record and assertions of the both counsels on record. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that because of the nature of the incident, it led to unfortunate death of cyclist, who is carrying stick packs, through cycle accidentally a stone 5 lying at the road margin hit to the cyclist front tyre, due to which, the cyclist lost control and fallen, which leads to fatal accident. But not at the fault of the petitioner. The learned counsel also asserted that, consequent to the death of the cyclist in the accident, the petitioner also faced criminal proceedings in C.C No.625 /2018 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, wherein, he got clean acquittal by the competent court. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner prayed that, because of his services extended to the 1st respondent Corporation, the respondent authorities ought to have adopted a more lenient view while passing the impugned orders. 10. Per Contra, the learned Standing Counsel stated that the respondent Corporation authorities, by perceiving the ground realities and also taking into consideration of facts and circumstances only, passed an equitable orders, which are in terms of rules in vogue. Thus, he supported impugned orders in the lis. 11. Taking into consideration the apparent fact that the petitioner parallelly undergone departmental as well as criminal proceedings consequent to the unfortunate death of cyclist right from the year 2008 onwards. At last, the competent criminal Court after conducting the full pledged Trial proceedings in C.C. 625/2008 acquitted the petitioner on 21.04.2011, assed to that, age of the petitioner too. 6 12. In this context, it is apt to refer the learned Single Judge orders dated 01.11.2018 in W.P. No.3545 of 2007 of the unified High Court at Hyderabad, in the identical circumstances, pleased to pass the following order:- “……This Court having considered the submissions made by both the parties is of the considered view that revisional authority ought to have imposed reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed by the revisional authority is modified to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by the revisional authority to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect. It is made clear that the above modified punishment is without any monetary benefits. No order as to costs……” 13. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3545 of 2007, dated 01.11.2018, was further confirmed in W.A.No.440 of 2019 vide order dated 17.10.2022 by the Hon’ble Divisional Bench also. 14. Thus, by taking into consideration the above line of orders, coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by modifying the punishment imposed by the Appellate authority to that of deferring the annual increment for a period of two years without effect on 7 petitioner’s future increments only, without altering other heads. It is also made clear that the above modified punishment is without any monetary benefits. 15. Accordingly, with the above modification, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 28.03.2025 GVK 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.4146 of 2017 Date: 28.03.2025 GVK