1 APHC010659542017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28654 OF 2017 Between: 1. B. S.Sarma, E-150508, APSRTC Conductor, W/o. Sriram Murthy, aged about 46 years, Ravulapalem Depot, R/o. Ravulapalem, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada, Krishna District. A.P. 2. The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C, East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry, E.G District. 3. The Dy Chief Traffic Manager, 0/c RM, A.P.S.R.T.C., East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry, E.G District. 4. The Depot Manager A P S R T C, Ravulapalem Depot, E.G. District ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order Or direction more particularly One in 2 the nature of writ of "CERTIORARI" calling for the records relating to and in connection with the Award of the Labor court in I.D.No: 82/2012, Dt 05.10.2016, which was published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt No: 292, Dt 17.05.2017 and to declare that the award is illegal, capricious, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the deferred increments with all the consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of difference of salary from the date of punishment forthwith and Counsel for the Petitioner: S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: T.Vinod Kumar 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:- “……an Order Or direction more particularly One in the nature of writ of "CERTIORARI" calling for the records relating to and in connection with the Award of the Labour court in I.D.No: 82/2012, Dt 05.10.2016, which was published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt No: 292, Dt 17.05.2017 and to declare that the award is illegal, capricious, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the deferred increments with all the consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of difference of salary from the date of punishment forthwith and pass ….” 3 2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner assailed the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.82/2012, Dt 05.10.2016, which was published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt No: 292, Dt 17.05.2017 and to declare that the award is illegal and capricious, and to restore the deferred increments with all consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of difference of salary from the date of punishment. 3. As stated by the petitioner, he joined in the 4th respondent Depot as a conductor in the year 2009 and thereafter his service was regularized. It is stated that on the premise that the petitioner had indulged in cash and ticket irregularities and the said act was construed as misconduct and after conducting regular departmental enquiry, a punishment was imposed by the 3rd respondent awarding deferment of Annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 4. Challenging the said punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The appellate authority, taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances and also considering the nature of punishment imposed against the petitioner, passed the impugned award. 5. The respondents Corporation filed its counter, admitting the date on which the petitioner joined as a conductor in the respondents Corporation. 4 6. The respondents’ Corporation further stated that the Tribunal by perceiving all the aspects had passed the award by cogent and sound reasoning. The sum and substance of the respondents’ counter is that there is no violation of rules in vogue and orders under challenge are not liable to be altered by this court. 7. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation. This Court has gone through the material on record and assertions of the both counsels on record. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect passed by the 4th respondent which was confirmed by the higher authority – Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court is too harsh. Learned counsel further contended that the higher authority ought to have taken a lenient view and imposed a punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect. 9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation had contended that the charge framed against the petitioner is very serious in nature and the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment. Learned standing counsel further contended 5 that the higher authority had taken a lenient view and no further lenient view can be taken and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the considered view that the higher authority ought to have imposed punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed by the appellate authority is modified to that extent. 11. 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 6 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……” 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by the higher authority/Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court to that of reduction of pay by imposing punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect. It is made clear that the above modified punishment is without any monetary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date:24.09.2025 RNS 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.28654 of 2017 Date:24.09.2025 RNS