APHC010086332014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10286/2014 Between: 1. URIBINDI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS DRIVER STAFF NO.625714, A.P.S.R.T.C., KANDUKUR DEPOT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/O.KANDUKUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, KANDUKUR DEPOT PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, CHIRALA DEPOT PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Proceedings in Lr.No.Steno 19(40)/11-D.C.T.M., dt.30.04.2011 of the 3rd Respondent, in rejecting the Appeal of the Petitioner preferred against the Order, dated 11.02.2011 of the 1st Respondent, as illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case 2 and consequently direct the Respondents to grant all the consequential benefits along with increments for the year 2009 along with continuity of service, keeping in view of the Judgment in C.C.No.119 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Parchur, Dated 25.06.2012 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 12934 OF 2014 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 release the increments for the years 2010 and 2011 to the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 4 OF 2014(WPMP 67252 OF 2014 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 38492 OF 2016 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 dispense with the appearance of the 4th respondent on 14-09-2016 in pursuant to the order dated 07-08-2016 in WP No.10286 of 2014 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V RAVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC 2. DANDA RADHIKA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner, who was engaged as a driver, was placed under suspension on 26.08.2010 for having caused a fatal accident on 14.08.2010. The disciplinary authority conducted an enquiry and the 1st respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review before the revisional authority. The revisional authority took a lenient view and directed reinstatement of the petitioner; however, it imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one (01) year with cumulative effect. The petitioner was also tried in C.C. No.119 of 2010 for the same offence, which ended in acquittal on 25.06.2012. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.07.2012 after acquittal in the criminal case, seeking reconsideration of the punishment imposed on him, as the petitioner was acquitted after a full-fledged trial. The representation was pending consideration and this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders. As the respondents failed to comply with the orders of this Court, the petitioner filed C.C. No.119 of 2010, and the same was closed directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks vide order dated 29.06.2016. 4. It is submitted that to initiate disciplinary action and impose punishment, the guilt of the petitioner would have to be proved insofar as the criminal case 4 is concerned. The petitioner was acquitted on merits and none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances, the respondents could not have imposed any punishment on the petitioner. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation submits that the petitioner would have to challenge the subsequent order dated 23.08.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions of this Court, whereby the representation dated 23.07.2012 was rejected. A detailed counter affidavit is also filed by the respondent-Corporation and it is stated therein that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and was granted adequate opportunity to put forth his case. The disciplinary authority considered his case in totality and imposed the punishment. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner. However, the revisional authority, on humanitarian grounds, set aside the punishment of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Having caused a fatal accident, the respondent authority imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one (01) year with cumulative effect. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 7. Perused the record. 8. The petitioner was reinstated into service and the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one (01) year with cumulative effect was imposed by the revisional authority. 5 9. As seen from the judgment passed in C.C. No.119 of 2010, it is evident that the petitioner has received an honourable acquittal and not an acquittal on technicalities. That apart, it is evident from the record that the revisional authority did not conduct any fresh enquiry before imposing the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one (01) year with cumulative effect. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the criminal trial faced by the petitioner before the competent Court arise out of the same cause of action. The sweep and scope of disciplinary proceedings before the enquiry officer is different as compared to the criminal trial. 10. However, on the facts of the present case, the petitioner was acquitted on merits and not on technicalities or on the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one (01) year with cumulative effect, being a major punishment, could not have been imposed without conducting a proper enquiry. 11. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner and modifies the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one (01) year with cumulative effect to that of withholding of annual increment for a period of one (01) year without cumulative effect. The respondents are directed to re-calculate and re-fix the incremental benefits payable to the petitioner from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period already lapsed. 6 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 20.01.2026 PNS