APHC010398372013 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: 29815/2013 Between: 1. D.R.RAO, E-600601, DRIVER,, D.R.RAO, E-600601, DRIVER, APSRTC, S/O ABBULU, 38 YRS, R/O GOKAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APSRTC REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE APSRTC REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, E.G. REGION AT RAJAHMUNDRY. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, GOKAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in without issuing any fresh charge sheet and not conducting any enquiry and by treating the earlier absence as misconduct, punishing the petitioner for life time by issuing the removal order vide Proc. No. P1/1(32)2012 GKRM, Dated 12.10.2012 and the review authority order vide proc No: PA/20/(20)/13-RM-EG, DT 2 20-4-2013 in so far it went against to the petitioner in imposing the punishment deferment of 2 annual increments with cumulative effect besides treating the removal period as not on duty, is unjust and against to the principles of natural justice, disproportionate to the alleged absence, contrary to well established principles of law and as such the punishment order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to pay the back wages along with all consequential benefits IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 37021 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 To Fix an early date of hearing of the W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S V RAMANA The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the revisional authority whereby the revisional authority had imposed the punishment of deferment of two (02) annual increments for a period of two (02) years, which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments, besides treating the period of absence as not on duty. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was alleged to have absented without obtaining permission from 22.07.2012 to 23.07.2012. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice for explaining his unauthorized absence. The petitioner did not submit any response and an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer considered the available record and submitted his report. The 3rd respondent, vide order dated 12.10.2012, imposed the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review before the revisional authority. The revisional authority, vide order dated 20.04.2013, considered the case of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service; however, it imposed the punishment of deferment of two (02) annual increments for a period of two (02) years, which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments, besides treating the period of absence in the above case, i.e., from the date of his removal till the date of his reporting to duty, as not on duty. 4 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was sick on 22.07.2012 and that he informed the concerned officer; however, the same was not considered and the petitioner’s absence was treated as unauthorized absence and the disciplinary authority imposed the severest punishment of removal from service. Though the revisional authority directed reinstatement of the petitioner, the imposition of the severe punishment of withholding of annual increments, which shall have the effect on future increments, will cause severe hardship to the petitioner. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner was a chronic absentee and even from the earlier service record the same can be made out. The preliminary enquiry report considered the entire service of the petitioner and, considering the nature of habitual absenteeism of the petitioner, the respondents have passed a well-reasoned order removing the petitioner from service. It is submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 20.03.2013; however, the review petition filed by the petitioner was considered in a lenient view by the 2nd respondent and the petitioner was reinstated into service in pursuance of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in the review proceedings. It is also stated that the petitioner, while working at Ramachandrapuram Depot, absented from 15.02.2014 to 20.02.2014 and the petitioner was issued a similar show-cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which 5 was rejected. However, the petitioner was again reinstated into service on the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. 5. Considering the submissions and perusing the record, the short point for consideration is whether the charge for which the petitioner was initially imposed the punishment of removal from service, which was set aside by the revisional authority. However, imposing the punishment of withholding of annual increments for a period of two (02) years, which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments, can sustain the scrutiny of law. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner is said to have absented himself without authorization for one day. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner took a stand that he was unwell on that day and was treated at the relevant hospital. The impugned proceedings do not refer to any of the said aspects, nor do they state that the petitioner had taken a vague stand regarding his illness on that particular date. The respondent, before imposing the punishment of removal, ought to have referred the petitioner to a medical expert for ascertaining the nature of illness, though the same was not done for reasons best known to the respondents. The revisional authority, though it has taken a lenient view, imposed a punishment which can cause severe hardship to the petitioner. 7. On these grounds, this Court is inclined to modify the order passed by the revisional authority to the extent that the deferment of two (02) annual 6 increments with cumulative effect shall be treated as deferment of two (02) annual increments without cumulative effect. 8. 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