THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 33858 of 1998 DATE: 13-2-2008 Between : Yousuf Ali …. Petitioner And 1. The Managing Director APSRTC, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 33858 of 1998 ORDER: Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a Head Security Guard, was issued a charge sheet containing four charges. On the charges being held established, the disciplinary authority imposed on him the punishment of stoppage of two increments permanently besides treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority who, while reducing the punishment to that of stoppage of withholding of one increment permanently, did not interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority in so far as the period of suspension was treated as not on duty. Before this Court, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, made detailed submissions on the manner in which the departmental enquiry was conducted. Learned Counsel would contend that failure to examine the complainant - Depot Manager in the departmental enquiry was fatal, that there was no evidence on record to establish the charge and that, in any event, the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent –Corporation, has also taken this Court through the enquiry proceedings in detail. He would point out that the petitioner has, in fact, admitted during the course of enquiry proceedings that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Security Inspector, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, deposed regarding the statement of the Depot Manager and the petitioner, on being asked as to whether he desired to cross-examine the Security Inspector with regards the statement of the Depot Manager, had expressed his disinclination to do so. According to the Learned Standing Counsel, since the degree of proof required to establish the guilt of a delinquent employee in a departmental enquiry is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, failure to examine the complainant is of little consequence when the evidence on record is sufficient to establish the charge. This Court is, however, spared of examining all these contentions, as Sri V.Narsimha Goud, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would concede that his client would be satisfied if, while confirming the order of punishment of withholding of one increment permanently, the competent authority is asked to reconsider its order on the manner in which the period of suspension is required to be treated, since treating the period of suspension as not on duty has resulted in the petitioner losing his seniority by several places. Learned Counsel would submit, not without justification, that the appellate authority did not consider the several contentions urged by the petitioner in his grounds of appeal. It is relevant to note that though the petitioner had, in his appeal, raised the contention that non-examination of the Depot Manager in the enquiry vitiated the enquiry proceedings, the appellate authority had not adverted to this and other aspects in his order. In view of the concession now made by the Sri V.Narsimha Goud, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it may not even be necessary for the appellate authority to re-examine all the contentions raised in the appeal. Ends of justice would be met if the appellate authority were directed to reconsider the manner in which the period of suspension should be treated and whether, instead of treating the period of suspension as not on duty, the period of suspension could be treated as leave to the extent available or as leave without pay. The appellate authority shall before passing an order afresh, give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The entire exercise in this regard, culminating in the passing of a fresh order, shall be completed by the appellate authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 13-2-2008 asp