APHC010806682018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 38954 OF 2018 z' Between: J.S.N.Raju, S/o Stayanarayana Raju, 59 years, E.353588 Driver Grade-I, H.No 41-1/10-27, Nehru Nagar, 1st Lane, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-500013. ...Petitioner AND 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director. Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada_ 2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Krishna Region, Vijayawada. 3. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Ibrahimpatnam Depot, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. Sri N Srikanth E 354626, Security Assistant Sub- Inspector, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vidyadharapuram, depot, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 appropriate writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. E2/475(01)/2016-IBM dated 18.05.2017 imposing the major penalty of reduction of present Basic Pay by one incremental stage permanently as confirmed in Appeal Proceedings dated 28.06.2017 and Revision proceedings r dated 22.03.2018 is arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the procedure prescribed under C.C&A Regulations and the principles of natural justice, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the basic pay of the petitioner and pay all service and superannuation benefits on the restored basic pay in the interest of justice and fair play. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to pay balance gratuity for the service rendered casual driver for the period from 04.04.1989 to 08.08.1990, pending disposal of the writ petition. as Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following order: 1 9 APHC010806682018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 38954 OF 2018 Between: 1. J.S.N.Raju, S/o Stayanarayana Raju, 59 years, E.353588 Driver Grade-I, H.No 41-1/10-27, Nehru Nagar, 1st Lane, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada- 500013. ...Petitioner AND 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director. Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada_ 2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.Krishna Region, Vijayawada. 3. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Ibrahimpatnam Depot, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. Sri N Srikanth E 354626, Security Assistant Sub- Inspector, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vidyadharapuram, depot, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 toto issue an appropriate writ, or i 2 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. E2/475(01)/2016-IBM dated 18.05.2017 imposing the major penalty of reduction of present Basic Pay by- one incremental stage permanently as confirmed in Appeal Proceedings dated 2S.06.2017 and Revision proceedings dated 22.03.2018 is arbitrary, unjust, contraryto the procedure prescribed under C.Cand A Regulations and the principles of natural justice, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the basic pay of the petitioner and pay all service and supamnuation benefits on the restored basic pay in the interest of justice and fair play sad pass lANO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to pay balance gratuity for the service rendered as casual driver for the period from 04.04.1989 to 08.08.1990, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 38954 OF 2018 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “...to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No E2/47501/2016IBM dated 18.05.2017 imposing the major penalty of reduction of present Basic Pay by one incremental stage permanently as confirmed in Appeal Proceedings dated 2S 06 2017 and Revision proceedings dated 22.03.2018 is arbitrary unjust contrary to the procedure prescribed under C C and A Regulations and the principles of natural justice discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and conseguently direct the Respondents to restore the basic pay of the petitioner and pay all service and supamnuation benefits on the restored basic pay in the interest of justice and fair play sad pass. ” Heard A.G.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the 2. petitioner and Sri Sanisetty VenRateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. ^:-T==. 4 f 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner worked as a Senior Driver in APSRTC for a period of 28 years without any blemish. On 26.05.2016, while he was speaking with union representatives with a bit loud voice outside the corporation premises, he was allegedly dragged by security personnel into the premises for testing him with a breath analyzer. However, the test could not be conducted. Despite this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a major penalty of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed vide proceedings dated 18.05.2017, whereas the petitioner retired on 30.06.2017. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has requested the authorities to furnish enquiry report in telugu, so that he can give suitable explanation before imposing punishment that was not rendered on the petitioner. Instead of that they have passed orders imposing the punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect. It was further submitted that the incident occurred outside the premises, at a time when the petitioner was not on duty, and that no conclusive evidence was recorded to prove that the petitioner was in drunken condition. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the due to union 5 rivalry charges are framed against him and that the punishment imposed just before retirement adversely affected his retirement benefits. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC 4. opposed the petition and submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the relevant rules. Learned counsel further submitted that scope of judiciary review in such matters is limited and if the court is convinced with the plea of the petitioner, it may affect the discipline of the employees in the corporation. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that since the individual escape, the authorities could not conduct the test and learned standing counsel prays for dismiss the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the petitioner worked as senior driver in APSRTC. He retired on superannuation after completing 28 years of service as a driver without any bad record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not on duty at the time of the alleged incident and that the incident occurred outside the APSRTC premises. The record indicates that the petitioner was 6 W^S' .1 dragged into the premises by security personnel, and that breath analysis test was conducted. Further the explanation of the individual further shows that the plea witnessed the incident and gave their statement about dragging of the individual by the security personal into the premises. no 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made and on the incident in the present case since the individual was at the fag end of the retirement the punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect, was imposed against the petitioner is not sustainable. In that view the petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings dated 18.05.2017, as confirmed in appeal and revision, are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness that Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Wednesday, Ninth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada. N 2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.Krishna Region, Vijayawada. 3. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Ibrahimpatnam Depot, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. One CC to Sri A G Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 I ORDER WP NO. 38954 OF 2018 ANDH^ s nJUL 2025 m ^ ^ Current Section < ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS