APHC010282592005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20530 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-25 [3506] G. Aravind ...Petitioner Vs. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Eluru and Anr. ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Sri G.KRISHNA KIREETI, Sri A RAJENDRA BABU Advocate for Respondent: Sri VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 26th February 2026 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E1/8(1)/2003-ELR, dated 31-08-2005, of the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and for extraneous reasons and contrary to the Circular No. PD 11 of 2005, dated 19-03-2005, issued by Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad and set aside the same and to pass ….” 2. (a) Petitioner at relevant point of time stated to have been posted as Superintendent (Finance) at APSRTC Eluru Depot. One of the drivers viz., V.V.S.Narayana came to be sanctioned House Building Advance (“H.B.A.”) amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- for conversion of Special H.B.A. vide 2 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 proceedings of the Executive Director, dated 25.03.2000, and the amount so sanctioned was to be reimbursed to SRBS, Hyderabad. As per the said memo, the amount so advanced has to be adjusted by way of monthly instalments and accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,250/- per month was supposed to be deducted starting from April, 2000. The communication though stated to have reached the office of the Eluru Depot, and the concerned Desk of Superintendent (Finance), who was responsible for pursuing the same and ensuring release of reimbursement amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, due to officers' negligence, the same was not processed. Meanwhile, petitioner stated to have been transferred from the said station to Chilakaluripet Depot on 06.09.2000. It is only on 06.09.2003, the subsequent Accounts/Supervising Officer stated to have arranged reimbursement of Rs.1,50,000/- and on account of delay from April, 2000 to 31.12.2003, the SRBS to whom amount was supposed to have been credited levied penal interest and the said amount got accumulated for Rs.1,07,930/- as on 28.02.2005. (b) Fixing the responsibility on the concerned officers, the respondents purported to have initiated proceedings. So, accordingly, charge sheet came to be issued on 04.12.2003, and after submission of explanation by the petitioner, eventually, the impugned order came to be passed by which the penal interest that was paid to SRBS has been ordered for recovery from the writ petitioner and other Superintendent 3 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 (Personnel Department), fixing up liability on them. Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. The respondents have filed detailed counter-affidavit meeting the averments and contentions raised in the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the enquiry officer has neither recorded statements of any of the officers nor staff, and merely based on the documents on file, has come to conclusion that the charges framed have been held to be proved, which is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, it is also contended that as the writ petitioner has got transferred from Eluru Depot to Chilakaluripet Depot, within a span of six months of issuance of the Memo., dated 25.03.2000, he cannot be held responsible for the delay even if any beyond 06.09.2000, therefore, the order of recovery even to the extent of 50% would be completely disproportionate. The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have conveniently ignored to enquire as to whether the successor of petitioner was in a way responsible for the delay caused beyond 06.09.2000. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. 4 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents tried to support the impugned order. He contended that petitioner being the then Superintendent (Finance), for all purposes, is responsible to ensure that the Memo., dated 25.03.2000, is followed up and complied with, but, merely because of his laxity to do so resulted in Corporation being mulcted with penal interest. As both Superintendent (Finance) and Superintendent of Personnel Department since were equally responsible in ensuring the H.B.A being promptly credited to the SRBS on time, even if petitioner has been transferred from that Depot subsequently cannot be exonerated from the liability. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsels. 8. Petitioner being Superintendent (Finance) working at Eluru Depot was in-charge and responsible for all financial aspects. Petitioner has never denied that the Managing Director issued Memo., dated 25.03.2000, sanctioning H.B.A. for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of Sri V.V.S. Narayana, Driver, which amount was supposed to be reimbursed to SRBS, Hyderabad. The very same proceeding also stipulates that the amount so advanced has to be adjusted by way of monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,250/- to be given effect from the month of April, 2000. In the explanation offered by the petitioner, he admitted to the factum of 5 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 communication of the said Memo., and that the same in turn to have been forwarded to Personnel Department. In financial matters, that too, when H.B.A. came to be extended to the employee of the Corporation, it is prudent and incumbent upon the concerned officer looking after finances to act swiftly and ensure the amounts are passed on to the appropriate beneficiaries. In the present case, the Memo. also stipulates that once the advance gets credited to SRBS, the amount in turn has to be recovered from the salary of the beneficial employee from the month of April, 2000. That being the scenario, petitioner ought to have been vigilant and pursued the matter to logical end. 9. The enquiry officer and also the disciplinary authority based on the evidence available on record have come to conclusion that the petitioner and also the other officer i.e., Superintendent of Personnel Department were responsible to ensure the Office Memo., got implemented and on account of their laxity and negligence, the issue got delayed, resultantly, the Corporation had ended up mulcting with liability of penal interest of Rs.1,07,930/-. 10. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that no witness has been examined to establish aforesaid factum, this Court is not impressed with said submission. The material before the enquiry officer and also disciplinary authority was very much sufficient to come to 6 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 conclusion that there was delay in honouring the disbursal of H.B.A. amount and that the petitioner was in the helm of affairs and responsible. 11. Be that as it may, the other contention of petitioner has some force and merit for consideration. Even as per the respondents, petitioner was relieved from Eluru Depot on 06.09.2000 and the H.B.A. amount came to be credited only sometime in December, 2003. If petitioner was found to be responsible for initial delay before he got transferred, the respondents ought to have enquired the matter as to the successor was also equally responsible for further delay beyond September, 2000, but, unfortunately, the enquiry has not proceeded in that direction. Petitioner, therefore, cannot be held responsible for the imposition of penal interest for the subsequent period of more than three years. But, one should not lose sight of the fact that the genesis for delay emanated because of irresponsible attitude of the petitioner. Balancing both these aspects, the amount of punishment has to be adjudged and it should not be disproportionate to the misdeed. 12. Having considered overall circumstances and for reasons and observations made above, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of recovery to the extent of 50% penal interest is disproportionate and not in commensurate with the charge levelled and therefore, the same requires to be modified by limiting the recovery to 25% penal interest. 7 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 13. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondents stands modified by restricting the recovery to the extent of 25% of penal interest insofar as petitioner is concerned, and accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:26.02.2026. cs