/ / a IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH ijo 1 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI WRIT PETITION NO: 11875 OF 2019 AMARAVATI PRATAPA Between: J.R. Rao, S/o. Hari Babu, Aged about 49 775239, R/o Lothuru (V), Renikota (Post) Palasa (M), Srikakulam years, Occ; Conductor, E.No. District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The APSRTC, Rep.by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director APSRTC, RTC House, Pandit Nehru Bus Station District. 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC Vizianagaram Zone, Vizianagaram District. 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC Palasa District. Vijayawada, Krishna Bus Dept. Palasa, Srikakulam / ...RESPONDENTS of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3'“ respondent in issuing in issuing proceedings No. M1.30(1)/2018-PLS dt recovery of an amount of Rs. 68,381/- from the one 19.08.2019 for petitioner in pursuance of as illegal arbitrary and constitution of India and consequently proceedings No.02/95(88)/99-PLS dt.30.09.1999 unjust and violation of Article 21 of set aside the same. (Main Prayer amended/Substituted vide lA No.2 of 2019 in W.P.No.11875 of 2019) as per Court Order dated 25.03.2025 <r lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 stay all further proceedings including recovery of the amount vide 3"' respondent proceedings No, Ml. 30(1)/2018 -PLS dt. 02.07.2019 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010263572019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 11875/2019 Between: J.R. Rao ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The APSRTC and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.YSUBBARAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: " to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3’''' respondent order i.e., Proceedings No.02/95(88)/99-PLS dt.30.09.1999 and consequential proceedings No.MI 30(1)/2018 PLS dt.02.07.2019 is as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violation of Article 21 Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the Proceedings No.88/99PLS dt.30.09.1999 and proceedings No.MI.30(l)/2018-PLS dt.02.07.2019." 2. Brief facts of the case are that: i) Initially, Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1997 in respondent No.3-pepot. ii) While he was performing duty, on 06.06.1999 on the route Singipuram to Mandasa, cash and ticket irregularities were found and a charge sheet was issued on 30.06.1999. iii) On 13.07.1999, Petitioner gave his explanation; But respondent No.3 without considering his explanation and without conducting any enquiry, passed the impugned final Order dated 30.09.1999 by imposing a punishment of deferment of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect on future increments. Thereafter, on the premise of audit objection, a show cause notice dated 02.07.2019 was issued to the Petitioner for recovery of excess wages. Questioning the impugned Final Order dated 30.09.1999 and the consequential Order dated 02.07.2019, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner worked as a Conductor at the relevant point of time. Further, a Charge Sheet was issued against the Petitioner on the allegation of issuing ticket worth Rs.3/- to the passenger and for closing the denominations in the SR without issuing proper tickets, which constitute misconduct under APSRTC Employees' Conduct Regulations, 1963 and in this connection a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner for which he submitted his explanation. Learned counsel would submit that respondent authorities without conducting any departmental enquiry, passed the impugned final order.Petitioner submitted his representation to the respondent authorities to the effect that major penalty cannot be imposed against him without conducting regular enquiry. Further, basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India, the respondent-corporation issued a Circular No.LO.1/99, dated 19.02.1999 which envisages that "without conducting enquiry into the charges leveiled against the empioyees which was severe in nature and may result in imposing of punishment of deferment of annual increment, conducting of enquiry is must and should." Thus, the impugned final order is against to Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees'(CC&A) Regulations. Learned counsel would submit that all of a sudden, because of audit objection, respondent Corporation issued a show cause notice vide Proceedings dated 02.07.2019 in due compliance of the punishment order passed on 30.06.1999. Finally, learned counsel would submit that punishment imposed against the Petitioner is against to the regulations of the respondent-corpo ration and the authorities cannot impose such a major penalty without following due process of law and conducting any regular enquiry, as such, the impugned final order and the consequential proceedings are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the wrong punching lead to loss of Rs.3/- to the Corporation and it amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the Petitioner. Respondent Corporation rightly imposed the penalty on the Petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned proceedings. However, learned Standing Counsel submits that the punishment was imposed on the petitioner without conducting any enquiry, which is against to Regulation 8 of the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations. 5. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on record, the version of the respondent-corporation is that Petitioner being a Conductor of the Bus at the relevant point of time, committed the irregularity of 4 wrong punching of the ticket amounting to Rs.3/- which is a misconduct under the regulations of the Corporation. 6. Be that as it may, nothing is placed on record to show that the alleged misconduct has been done deliberately with a guilty intention on the part of the Petitioner to cause monetary loss to the Corporation. The fact remains that a major penalty of reduction of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner by the respondent Corporation. In the absence of conducting any regular enquiry, imposing such a major penalty against the petitioner would amount to contravention of Regulation 8 of the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, which is reiterated in Circular No.LO. 1/99, dated 19.02.1999. 7. It is now beneficial to reiterate the contents of the Circular No.LO.1/99, dated 19.02.1999 and it reads thus: "Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations specifies the various penalties that may be imposed upon an employee by the disciplinary authority. Regulations 12(2) of the said Regulations further provides that order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in Terms (vii), .(viii) and (ix) of clause (1) of Regulation 8 shall be passed except after an enquiry is held in the manner prescribed under the Regulations. Thus, according to CC&A Regulations major penalties can be imposed only after conducting an enquiry as provided under the regulations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwanth Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab, 1990(1) LU, page 1635 cumulative effect would amount to a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed unless an enquiry is conducted and the employee is held guilty of the misconduct. Based on the said decision of the Supreme Court, several employees who are imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect are approaching the High no 5 Court and Labour Court for setting aside the said punishment on the ground that no enquiry is conducted before imposing the said major penalty. Following the judgement of the Supreme Court, the High Court and Labour Court as are allowing the said claims and directing repayment of the incremental arrears withheld. These claims are causing serious financial problems involving repayment of the money recovered. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to conducting enquiry into the charges leveled against an employees are serious in nature and may result in imposing of punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect. All the disciplinary authorities are hereby instructed not to impose the punishment of with-holding the increment with cumulative effect until an enquiry as contemplated under the CC&A Regulations is conducted and the charges leveled against the employees are proved in the enquiry. These instructions shall be followed scrupulously by the disciplinary authorities." 8. In the light of the aforementioned premise, the impugned Order and the consequential impugned show cause notice are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Proceedings dated 30.09.1999 passed by the respondent No.3 and the consequential proceedings dated 02.07.2019 are set aside. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. . . • Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, RTC House, Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Pandit Nehru 2, The Regional Manager, APSRTC Vizianagaram Zone, Vizianagaram District. I ■ APSRTC Palasa, Bus Dept. palasa, Srikakulam 3. The Depot Manager District. 4 one CC to Sri Y Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUCl 5. one CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, SC for APSRTC [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb \ a HIGH COURT DATED:25/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.11875of 2019 <>» ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS