IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY jl? TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ■ ■ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 28680 OF 2012 Between: K.S.Narayana, S/o. Sri Ramulu, Aged 52 years, Occ: Conductor, E.No.484367, D.No.6-55-149, Reddika Street, Santhapeta, Thagarapu village, Bheemili Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep: by its MD, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad. 3. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Rural Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam. 5. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam. ...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 order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in reducing the basic pay, increments and deducting an amount of Rs.500/- per month from the petitioner salary and also in not passing any orders on the appeal submitted to the 2nd respondent on 05.03.2012 as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently directed the respondents to pay the deducted the amount also restore the petitioner basic pay and increment which were reduced without issuing any notice. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012rWPMP. NO: 36581 OF 2012) 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 respondents to stay the deduction of amount from petitioner salary, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA(SC FOR APSRTC.PNV) The Court made the following Order: / I f APHC010777122012 0jg IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI SS (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N [3457] WRIT PETITION NO: 28680/2012 Between: K.s.narayana, ...PETITIONER The A P State Road Transport Corporation ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others AND Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) 0 f HN, J W.P,No.28680 2012 2 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the imposition of punishment involving the reduction in basic pay, increments, and the deduction of an amount of Rs.500/- per month from the petitioner’s salary and he is also challenging the inaction of the respondents in disposing of the appeal dated 05.03.2012. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the respondent corporation as a conductor in the year 1989, and his services were regularized in the year 1991. The petitioner was charged with cash and ticket irregularity, and a charge meme dated 22.09.2009 was issued to the petitioner, enquiry was conducted, and a show cause notice dated 10.02.2010 was issued, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted an appeal on 15.03.2010, followed by representations dated 26.05.2010 and 05.03.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said appeal and representations have not been disposed of or decided by the respondents. The said acts of the respondents, in not deciding the appeal of the petitioner and in deducting an amount of Rs.500/- month from his salary, are under challenge. An per HN, J W.P.No.28680_2012 3 3. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have conducted a detailed enquiry and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct. Final orders were passed on 17.02.2010. submitted that the orders dated 17.02.2010 is not under challenge. It is also submitted by the learned Standing counsel that the petitioner was involved in similar cash and ticket irregularities two earlier occasions, and punishments of deferment of increment were imposed on the petitioner on those occasions as well. It is on 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 17.02.2010 was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court without invoking the jurisdiction of the competent Labour Court. The Labour Court would be the competent forum to go into the issue of the rationality and proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner and to give a finding on the facts. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner approached this Court directly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to take steps if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2010. f HN,J W.P,No.28680_2012 4 6. With these observations, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Sridhar Tummalapudi Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada(SC for APSRTC,PNV) [OPUC] Three CD Copies 2. 3. vna HIGH COURT DATED: 17/02/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.28680 of 2012 CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS