APHC010382102013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 6090/2013 Between: 1. P. ARJUN RAO, S/O. LATE VEERAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YESES, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.457708, APSRTC, R/O. RAMACHANDRAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, RAMACHANDRAPURARO, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER A P S R T C, RAJAHMUNDRY. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, RAJAHMUNDRY. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. A P S R T C REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING, DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. ...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 in the mare of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No. HC/95(73)/09-RCPM, dt: 12-01- 2011 and the consequential Proceedings No. PA/20(33)/11-Dy.CTM/EG, dated: 24-04-2011 issued by the 2nd respondent and Proceedings No. PA/20(83)/11-RM:EG, dated: 10-04-2012 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, void and against to the principles of natural justice and pass 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 7587 OF 2013 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 suspend the proceedings No. HC/95(73)/09-RCPM, dt: 12-01-2011 and the consequential Proceedings No. PA/20(33)/11-Dy.CTM/EG, dated: 24-04-2011 issued by the 2nd respondent and Proceedings No. PA/20(83)/11-RM:EG, dated: 10-04-2012 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment imposed on him of withholding his annual increment for a period of nine (09) months, which shall have the effect of postponing future increments. The said punishment was imposed by the 1st respondent vide order dated 12.01.2011. The petitioner, while working as a Conductor, was charged with closing the star document by remitting short cash of Rs.4/-. It is also stated that the cash was deposited after a gap of 5 hours 45 minutes, which resulted in alleged temporary misappropriation of the corporation revenue. 2. Considering the alleged temporary misappropriation of the cash belonging to the respondent-Corporation, the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry and, based on the enquiry report, imposed the punishment vide proceedings dated 12.01.2011. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal and review before the competent authorities, which were rejected. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charge itself would indicate that there is no loss to the respondent-Corporation. It is also not explained as to in what manner remitting of cash after 5 hours 45 minutes would result in misappropriation of the cash belonging to the respondent-Corporation. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 12.01.2011 does not refer to the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the appellate and review authorities also got carried away by the order passed by the 1st respondent. 4 It is submitted that withholding of annual increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment which could not have been imposed for the charges framed. It is also submitted that admittedly there is no financial loss to the respondent-Corporation and the only allegation is that the petitioner remitted the cash of the respondent-Corporation after a gap of five hours and 45 minutes, and temporary misappropriation is alleged against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner had failed to remit an amount of Rs.4/- towards the cost of an E4 luggage ticket of Rs.1/- denomination and closed the ticket numbers in the waybill portion though they were sold en route. It is stated that short cash of Rs.4/- was noticed. However, the petitioner remitted the amount after a gap of 5 hours 45 minutes. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No.14881 of 2009 challenging the order of suspension imposed on him. This Court directed the respondents to restore the service of the petitioner and also directed the respondent-Corporation to conduct an enquiry by giving all reasonable opportunities. It is submitted that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the petitioner was rejoined to duty and was given ample opportunity to participate in the enquiry. As such, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of fundamental right, seek the remedy before this Court. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Admittedly, there is no misappropriation of cash. The allegation of temporary misappropriation ought not to have resulted in imposing a major 5 punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of nine (09) months with cumulative effect. The charges framed also do not indicate that the petitioner has misused or misappropriated any amount. Temporary misappropriation, in the facts of the present case where the amount was subsequently accounted for, cannot be construed as misappropriation. This Court is inclined to modify the punishment as withholding of annual increments for a period of nine (09) months without any cumulative effect. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages or past benefits. 7. 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 24.02.2026 PNS