THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.24441 OF 2004 Date: 26.08.2011 Between: G.Naga Raju …..Petitioner And The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Region, Kurnool District and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.24441 OF 2004 ORDER: Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, the learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, the learned standing counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). 2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to declare the action of the third respondent in issuing the punishment orders dated 17-12-1999 and 21-2-2000 as illegal and for a direction to set aside the same. 3. The Petitioner herein is a former conductor of APSRTC. At the relevant time, he was employed as conductor in the Nandikotkur Depot of APSRTC. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him on the following two charges. 1. “For having misbehaved with the Traffic Inspector Gr.II Sri B.Ismial of Nandikotkur depot at about 18-10 hours on 3-11-1999 while he was on duty and questioned why double duty amount was not paid to Sri K.M.Rao, E.403872, Conductor and also uttered as “D.D. CHESINAVARIKI D.D. AMOUNT ENDUKU IVVAVU. NEE SONTHAMU VALLAKU ICHUKUNTAVU. R.T.C. NEE SONTHAMA, NEE JEBU DABBULU ISTHUNNAVA!” which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For your indecent and highhanded behaviour with the on duty security guard Sri P.Narayana on 3-11-1999 duly threatening him and said as “ASALU NEEVU IKKADIKI ENDUKU VACHINAVU. NEE DUTY NEEVU CHEYI. NEE SEATLO NEVU KURCHO. MAMMULANU BAYATIKI VELLIPO ANATANIKI NEEVU EVARAVU. NENU EE DEPOT KINGUNI. NADI RECOGNISED UNION. KAVALANUKUNTE MEE S.O. THO MATLADUTHANU.” which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. After completion of enquiry and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 17-12-1999 regarding penalty and an order directing him to give explanation regarding suspension period that whether to treat it as on duty or not. It may however be noted that in the same notice dated 17- 12-1999 the concerned authority i.e. Depot Manager of Nandikotkur who is the third respondent herein straightaway imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and this is admitted by the learned standing counsel of the APSRTC. At the same time, it should be noted that in the said notice after calling upon the petitioner to explain his stand regarding the suspension period, the third respondent by his separate proceedings dated 21-2-2000 passed an order stating that the suspension period was not to be treated as duty. Both the orders/notices are questioned in this writ petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing any show cause notice to him regarding the imposition of the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, the third respondent straightaway imposed that punishment and the petitioner’s plea is that such a procedure is not contemplated under the rules or regulations. It is not necessary to go into the merits of this aspect. It would be sufficient to note that having regard to the charges which do not involve any corruption, I am of the opinion that the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect can be said to be disproportionate to the charges. In the circumstances, the penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect would meet the ends of justice. However with regard to the proceedings dated 21-2-2000 of the disciplinary authority treating the suspension period as not on duty, there is no ground to interfere with the same and the relief in respect of the same is rejected. 5. Accordingly, the penalty relating to stoppage of increments is modified as indicated above and the relief regarding the suspension period is rejected. 6. This writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 26th August, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.24441 OF 2004 DATE: 26.08.2011