IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 22738 of 2000 BETWEEN: M.N.Rao, E-455997, C/o The General Secretary, A.P.S.R.T.C., United Workers Union Regd.No.G-1180, GOKAVARAM, Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhpatnam. 2 The Depot Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., GOKAVARAM, Rajhamaundry. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari; i) call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.180/96, on the ﬁle of the 1st Respondent and set aside the same; ii) direct the 2nd Respondent to restore the increments of petitioners deferred in pursuant of Impugned Proceedings No.PA/62(94)/90-GKRM, dt 17- 1-91, duly granting all other consequential beneﬁts and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.S.A.RAZAK Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 20th November 1999, passed in I.D.No.180 of 1996, which conﬁrmed the order of punishment, dated 17th January 1991, passed by the Depot Manager, Gokavaram, in proceedings No.PA/62(94)/90-GKRM. 2. The petitioner is working as a Conductor in Godavarikhani Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the bus bearing No.AAZ-9015 on the route from Maredemilli to Rajahmundry on 7th December 1990, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by framing the following two charges against him : “1. For having collected an amount of Rs.10.25 ps. and issued a lower denomination ticket of Rs.9.50 ps instead of Rs.10.25 ps., while you were conducting the vehicle No.AAZ-9015 on the route from Maredemilli to Rajahmundry on 7-12-90 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 2. For having closed all ticket denominations upto the stage No.2 without completing the ticket issues correctly which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xvii) of APSRTC Employees’(Conduct) Reg.1963.” Though the petitioner has ﬁled his explanation denying the above said charges, orders are passed in Proceedings No.PA/62(94)/90-GKRM, dated 17th January 1991, ordering to defer annual increment of the petitioner for a period of 18 months, which shall have eﬀect of postponing future increments. Though the petitioner has ﬁled appeal against the said orders, he was unsuccessful before the appellate authority. Thereafter, he has raised the dispute before the APSRTC Workers’ Union, which took the issue to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. On failure of conciliation process, the Government has referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, on discussing the evidence on record, has upheld the order of punishment passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. 3. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that as much as the punishment of deferring increment with cumulative eﬀect, which will have the eﬀect on his future pay, amounts to reduction in pay, and as such, the authorities ought not have imposed such punishment without conducting a regular inquiry. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1]. 4. Though in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents it is stated that a regular inquiry was conducted, but there is no such reference anywhere in the proceedings. The order, dated 17th January 1991, merely refers to the charge sheet dated 17th December 1990, and the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner on 30th December 1990, to the said charges. Further, even from the ﬁndings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal also, it is evident that no domestic inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer so as to impose such a punishment. Imposing of punishments on the employees of the Corporation are governed by the Regulations which are titled as “APSRTC Employees (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967” framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The punishment of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time scale whether in the same class of service or in another class, or to a lower stage in a time scale, is provided under Regulation 8(vii) of the Regulations, and as per the procedure notiﬁed under Regulation 12, such a penalty can be imposed only after conducting a regular inquiry, but not by merely issuing a show cause notice and calling for explanation. Though it is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that an inquiry oﬃcer was appointed and a regular inquiry was conducted, but upon a perusal of the impugned order imposing the punishment and the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal, it is evident that nowhere there is an indication of any report being submitted by the inquiry oﬃcer. Except referring to the charge sheet and explanation oﬀered by the petitioner to the said charges, no other ﬁndings are relied upon by the disciplinary authority, before imposing the punishment. As much as in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra 1), it is held that deferring of increment which will have eﬀect on future pay will amount to reduction in pay in the same scale, and therefore, the said judgment supports the case of the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter, in the normal course, though the matter has to be reconsidered, but however, as much as the impugned order was passed in the year 1991 and the Tribunal has passed the award in 1999, and the writ petition is pending before this Court for the last about eight years, to put a quietus to the litigation, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition in part and modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the punishment of stoppage of annual increment as ordered in the proceedings, dated 17th January 1991, by the Depot Manager, Gokavaram in his Proceedings No.PA/62(94)/90-GKRM, is modiﬁed as deferring of the annual increment for a period of 18 months without any eﬀect either on the future increments or on the pay of the petitioner. In all other respects, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is conﬁrmed. The pay of the petitioner shall be re-ﬁxed in the light of the above modification, as expeditiously as possible. 7. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th November 2008 ajr [1] 1990 (2) LLN 1019