IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11966 of 1999 Between: K. Koteshwar Rao, E. 53673, S/o. Raghavaiah R/o. Tenali, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur Region, GUNTUR. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tenali Depot, Tenali, Guntur District. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent herein in issuing the proc.No. PA/19(3)/96-RM/GNT dt. 31-1-96 in so far as it went against me in denying the annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides denying the wages from the date of removal to till reinstatement while reinstating me into services as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and violative and Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such the same is liable to be modified to the extent of reinstatement with full wages w.e.f. 18-5-95 and consequentially direct the 2nd Respondent herein to pay the arrears of wages from 18-5-95 to till today forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition Nos. 11966 of 1999 Order: The petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has filed the present writ petition challenging the proceedings No.PA/19(3)/96-RM/GNT, dated 31.01.1996, of the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager, to the extent of denying the annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides denying the back wages from the date of removal till reinstatement. The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and attached to Guntur-II depot. Based on a complaint dated 18.05.1993, to the effect that he was doing business in chit funds and lottery in the name of “Srinivasa Lucky Bumper Scheme”, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and based on the preliminary enquiry report, he was issued with a charge sheet to the following effect. “For having engaged yourself in a chit fund without any name i.e., commercial business without valid registration and organized a scheme in the name of “Srinivasa Lucky Bumper Scheme”, Ganganammapet, Tenali bycollecting Rs.300/- each from thousand members which constitutes misconduct vide Reg.No.17 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations read with Reg.No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” The petitioner filed his explanation denying the said charge. Having not satisfied with the said explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charge leveled against him. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his report dated 20.07.1994 by recording a finding that the petitioner was involved in running “Srinivasa Lucky Bumper Scheme” and chit fund commercial business while working at Tenali depot, and he also failed to pay the bid amounts to the members. Based on the said enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 21.12.1994 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him. The petitioner, having received the said show cause notice, did not respond to the same. Thereafter, the Depot Manager, Tenali, issued proceedings No.02/03/83/20/93-TNL, dated 18.05.1995, removing the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the same was also dismissed. Later, the petitioner carried the matter by way of review before the Regional Manager, Guntur. Though the Regional Manager, Guntur, vide proceedings No.PA/19(3)/96-RM/GNT, dated 31.01.1996, concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the orders passed by the primary and appellate authorities, but keeping in view the 20 years of service rendered by the petitioner, he has taken a sympathetic view and ordered to reinstate the petitioner into service by substituting the punishment to that of stoppage of annual increments for a period of two years, which shall have effect on his future increments. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the petitioner was not having any registration to do the business, the same cannot constitute misconduct within the framework of the Regulations titled as A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. It is not in dispute that as per the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, no employee of the Corporation shall engage in any commercial business. Being an employee, the petitioner doing business itself whether with registration or without registration, certainly amounts to misconduct within the meaning of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations. Moreover, the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, has recorded a finding to the effect that the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved. Based on the same, the orders of removal were passed by the disciplinary authority, which were confirmed by the appellate authority. Though the revisional authority concurred with the findings recorded by the primary and appellate authorities, but keeping in view the 20 years of service rendered by the petitioner, he has taken a sympathetic view and ordered to reinstate the petitioner into service by substituting the punishment to that of stoppage of annual increments for a period of two years, which shall have effect on his future increments. Having regard to the nature of charge framed against the petitioner, which was proved in the departmental proceedings, it cannot be said that there is no misconduct on the part of the petitioner. For the above said reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the review authority warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 27.01.2009 Nsr