APHC010834152017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39138/2017 Between: Ch.s.rao ...PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T.VINOD KUMAR ( 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 Certiorari calling for the record relating to the impugned award dated 28.11.2016 made in I.D. No.46 of 2011 on the file of 2nd Respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour 2 Court, Visakhapatnam and set aside the same as arbitrary perverse and contrary to law including Order No. M2/21/1999SML dated 03.06.1999 as confirmed in Appeal and Revision imposing the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect and consequently fix the pay of the petitioner by adding the deferred increments and treating the period of suspension as on duty with all consequential benefits and pass….” 02. Through the instant Writ Petition, the Order dated 28.11.2016 in ID No.46 of 2011 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam is challenged, wherein the Order of the 1st respondent dated 03.06.1999, against the petitioner was affirmed to the extent of deferment of annual increment for a period of two (02) years, which shall have effect on the petitioner’s future increments and also treating the suspension period as “not on duty” for all purposes. 03. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was allotted to duty on Bus No.AP10 Z 1108 on route Simhachalam to R.K.Beach, wherein at about 13.35 Hrs, at Viratnagar Bus Stop, a boy riding on a cycle hit at the left 3 rear portion of the bus and received blood injuries due to the forcible impact against the road. It is stated that while the petitioner was negotiating with the Bus bearing No.AEZ 5564 plying on route 55, which was stationed at the bus stop, the petitioner having heard a sound, stopped the bus and found a boy fell on the road, which resulted to the death of the cyclist. The respondent management issued charge sheet and show cause notice against the petitioner and the petitioner also submitted his explanation to the same. Having not satisfied with the petitioner’s explanation, the respondent management conducted domestic enquiry and after receipt of the enquiry report, the 1st respondent passed an Order dated 03.06.1999, whereby and where under, the petitioner was reinstated into the service, duly imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two (02) years, which shall have effect on future increments, duly treating the period of suspension as “not on duty” for all purposes. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred ID No.46 of 2011 on the file of the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam which was dismissed by an Award dated 28.11.2016. 4 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner undergone criminal proceedings, due to the very same cyclist death, in C.C.No.156 of 1999 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. After conducting due trial, learned Single Judge, acquitted the petitioner vide Judgment dated 17.04.2000. The petitioner also contended that the Order dated 28.11.2016 in ID No.46 of 2011 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam is liable to be set-aside, as it is in equitable amounts to double punishment. 05. Respondent Corporation filed its counter, admitting the factum of issuing the suspension order to the petitioner. Respondent Corporation further stated that the 1st respondent by perceiving all the aspects, had taken a lenient view and passed the Order dated 03.06.1999. It is also further asserted that the 1st respondent order is backed by cogent and sound reasoning. Thus, the Labour Court has confirmed the same by way of the impugned Order dated 28.11.2016. The sum and substance of the 1st respondent counter is that there was no violation of rules in vogue and 5 the order under challenge is not liable to be altered by this Court. 06. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. This Court has gone through the material available on record and assertions of the learned counsel on both sides. 07. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the unfortunate death of cyclist is due to the rash and haste driving of the cyclist, but not at the fault of the petitioner. 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.156 of 1999 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, wherein, he got clean acquittal by the competent Court. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that because of the petitioner’s services extended to the 1st respondent Corporation, the respondent authorities ought to have adopted a more lenient view while passing the impugned order. 6 08. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel stated that the respondent Corporation authorities, by perceiving the ground realities and also by considering the facts and circumstances of the case only passed an equitable order, which is in terms of rules in vogue. Thus, he supported the impugned order in the lis. 09. 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 1999 onwards, at last, the competent Criminal Court, after conducting the full pledged Trial proceedings in C.C.No.156 of 1999, acquitted the petitioner on 17.04.2000. 10. In this context, it is apt to refer the learned Single Judge Order dated 01.11.2018 in W.P.No.3545 of 2007 of the unified High Court at Hyderabad, wherein in the identical circumstances, the learned Single Judge was pleased to pass the following order:- 7 “……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……” 11. 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 Division Bench also. 12. 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 1st Respondent which is again confirmed in 8 the Award dated 28.11.2016 in ID No.46 of 2011 passed by the 2nd respondent, to that of deferring the annual increment for a period of two (02) years, without effect on petitioner’s future increments only, without altering the other heads. It is also made clear that the above modified punishment is without any monetary benefits. 13. Accordingly, with the above modification, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Dated: 17.04.2025 PSA 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39138 of 2017 Date: 17.04.2025 PSA