1 APHC010918532018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 44400/2018 Between: E. Koteswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The A P S R T C and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Standing Counsel for APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect, besides treating the suspension period from 31-07-2017 to 17-09-2018 as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments, vide Proc. No.PA/19(36)/18-RM/VSP, dt.17-09-2018, while considering the punishment of removal from service vide Proc. No.P2/498(1)/2017-MDWD, dt.20-11-2017 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside in so far it went against to the petitioner in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to restore the deferred increments with all consequential benefits forthwith and 2 pass such other order or orders……” 2. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is working as a Driver in APSRTC. While so, the Respondent-Authorities have framed a charge against the Petitioner that he made a false complaint against his colleague employees and was suspended from 31.07.2017 to 17.09.2018 and in that regard, he was removed from service and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, in view of the orders of the Review Authority, the Petitioner was reinstated into service, however, with a punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments. Learned counsel would further submit that the punishment which was awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner sustained injuries in the hands of K.S.Ramulu, a co-driver and in that view he could not attend the duty from 11.07.2017 till 24.07.2017. Learned counsel would further submit that, reduction of two increments with cumulative effect may have impact and create loss to the service of the Petitioner as a Driver. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that a false complaint has been lodged by the Petitioner against his co-employee and he also absconded from duty from 11.07.2017 till 24.07.2017. In case, the Court is convinced 3 with the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner, consider the case of the Petitioner without actual monetary benefit for the period of the increments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders regarding the monetary benefits, but atleast the Petitioner may be availed notional benefit of increment with continuation of service by setting aside the impugned order. 6. On a perusal of the material on record, it appears that, on a given date, the bus went to Proddatur, and there the alleged incident happened, where the Petitioner has made a complaint against the co-employees that they were playing cards in the staff room, which was considered as a false complaint. It is also the case of the Petitioner that in that incident, he was beaten by his co- employee. But no criminal case has been lodged against the co-employee, and subsequently, they compromised the matter. However, it is the contention of the Petitioner that, in view of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged scuffle, he could not attend the duty for few days. Subsequently, he has submitted the leave application. But that period was considered as absconding from duties, which is not tenable. 7. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, nothing is attributed against the Petitioner that, with a malafide intention he lodged a false complaint against his co-employees. In that view, awarding punishment of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect, is disproportionate to the 4 alleged misconduct of the Petitioner. Hence, the matter requires indulgence of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by modifying the punishment of two annual increments with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect. However, the Petitioner is entitled for the notional benefit of increment with continuation of service, without any monetary benefit for the said period. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.06.2025 ARR 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 44400/2018 Dt.24.06.2025 ARR