1 APHC010808502016 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: 6964 OF 2016 Between: 1. Y.Vasantha, E-554868, Conductor, W/o.Manjunadha Reddy, Kuppam APSRTC Depot, R/o Kuppam, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager APSRTC, Chittoor Region at Tirupati, Chittoor Dist. 3. The Depot Manager APSRTC Kuppam, Chittoor 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 the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay for a period of 1 year with cumulative effect on the allegation of not collecting and not issuing the ticket worth Rs 5/-, while modifying the punishment of removal from 2 service by the 2nd respondent, vide proc.No: PA/19(19)/2014- RM/(T), Dt. 23-6-2014, while modifying the punishment of Removal in proc No: PA/95(193)/2013- DM/KPM, Dt. 4-12-2013, besides treating the removal period as not on duty, as illegal, unjust and arbitrary, unwarranted and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Vinod Kumar Tarlada (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 action of the 2nd respondent in imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect on the allegation of not collecting and not issuing the ticket worth Rs.5/-, while modifying the punishment of removal from service by the 2nd respondent, vide proc.No. PA/19(19)/2014-RM (T) dated 23.06.2014, while modifying the punishment of removal in proc.No.PA/95(193)/2013-DM/KPM, Dt:04.12.2013, besides treating the removal period as not on duty, as illegal, unjust and arbitrary, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and to pass ….” 3 2. Through the instant writ petition, proceedings No. PA/19(19)/2014-RM (T) dated 23.06.2014 of the 2nd respondent assailed to the extent of modification of punishment of removal from service in proc.No.PA/95(193)/2013-DM/KPM, Dt: 04.12.2013, besides treating the removal period as not on duty for all purposes against the petitioner, are being challenged before this Court. 3. As stated by the petitioner, she joined the 3rd respondent Depot as a conductor in the year 2009 and consequently, her service was regularized on 01.10.2012. It is stated that the petitioner was removed from the 2nd respondent Corporation vide proc.No.PA/95(193)/2013- DM/KPM, dated 04.12.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent, 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, she was removed from service vide orders dated 04.12.2013 for the proven misconduct. 4. Challenging the said removal orders dated 04.12.2013, the petitioner carried the matter by way of an appeal to the 2nd respondent. The appellate authority, taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances and also considering the nature of the charges leveled against the petitioner, modified the removal orders vide order No.PA/19(19)/2014-RM(T) dated 23.06.2014, whereby and whereunder, reinstated the petitioner into service, duly imposing the punishment of 4 deferment of increment for a period of one year, which shall have effect on future increments duly treating the period of removal as not on duty for all purposes. 5. The respondents Corporation filed its counter, admitting the date on which the petitioner joined as a conductor 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 against the petitioner are true and correct. 6. The respondents’ Corporation further stated that the 2nd respondent/appellate authority, by perceiving all the aspects, had taken a lenient view and passed the modification orders dated 23.06.2014. It is also further asserted that the orders passed by the appellate authority are 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 Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, 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 modified punishment of appellate authority to that of reduction of pay of 5 the petitioner by one incremental stage for one year with cumulative effect is too harsh. Learned counsel further contended that the appellate authority ought to have taken a lenient view and imposed a punishment of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year 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 of removal for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. Learned standing counsel further contended that the appellate 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 appellate 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 appellate authority is modified to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. 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 6 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……” 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 appellate 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 7 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 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.6964 of 2016 Date:24.09.2025 RNS