THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.711 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a Booking Clerk of the State-owned Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (‘the Corporation’, for short), putting in issue the legality and correctness of that portion of the order passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation, Ranga Reddy Region, on 22-03-2000, imposing the punishment of reduction of his pay, entertaining a Revision preferred by him against the Order of punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent, which Order was confirmed by the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority. The facts that gave rise to writ petition are these: On 10-10-1998, while the writ petitioner was performing his duties at Imliban Bus Station, Hyderabad, as a Reservation Counter Clerk, one passenger by name Sri T. Keshav, said to be the resident of Nakrekal, Nalgonda District, lodged a complaint before the Station Manager of the Corporation, Imliban Bus Station, against the petitioner alleging that he abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him while the said individual was seeking an enquiry as to the buses that would be stopping at Nakrekal village. The case of the writ petitioner was that Imliban Bus Station is one of the most frequented bus stations and the services operated therefrom are utilized by passengers running into thousands day in and day out. Therefore, for the convenience of passengers, bus services are operated from various platforms constructed therein. Express bus, deluxe bus and ordinary bus services are operated from the said bus station. Express and deluxe bus services are operated mostly on long distance routes and with limited number of halts. Most of the express and deluxe bus services, though pass through several villages en route, will not be stopped at these villages or at the bus stations located thereat. No passengers will be booked either to alight or to get into the buses at these villages. As a Reservation Counter Clerk, he was busy attending to the duties attached thereto and he was issuing tickets to several passengers, who are standing in a long queue. An unknown person suddenly appeared at the Reservation Counter and started making all kinds of enquiries about the bus services, particularly, which bus would stop at Nakrekal village in Nalgonda District. The writ petitioner, initially, attempted to direct the said passenger to go to the enquiry counter to find out the said information or at least go to the next counter, which is a Public Relations Counter to secure the necessary information therefrom. Since, the visitor / passenger insisted upon his queries to be answered, without meaning any disrespect, the writ petitioner tried to query as to his educational qualifications. This, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, was asked for by the writ petitioner so that he could direct the said passenger or queriest, to go to the nearest platform, wherefrom the buses ply to Nakrekal are operated so that the timings, which are exhibited in a timetable thereat can be noticed by him. To this simple question, the passenger got annoyed and lost of his cool and started shouting at the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, who was sitting in a Reservation Counter, has only admonished the queriest for seeking to disturb his work instead of approaching the correct source notwithstanding his appearance to be an educated person. For this reply, the passenger or the queriest took offence and lodged a complaint against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner stoutly disputes that there is no way that he has used filthy language to abuse the passenger, much less, seek to assault him. In view of the conflicting fact situation, a domestic enquiry followed. During the course of domestic enquiry, the complainant T. Keshav said to be the resident of Nakrekal village, has been requested to participate in the domestic enquiry. Though notice in that respect has been sent by the Corporation by registered post with acknowledgment due and notwithstanding the receipt of such a notice the said individual, Sri T. Keshav did not turn up for participating in the enquiry, as a result, the writ petitioner did not have a fair or adequate opportunity to cross-examine the said individual and to ascertain the true and correct factual situation. The 3rd respondent disciplinary authority, however, preferred to rely upon the domestic enquiry report, which held the writ petitioner guilty based upon the statements, said to have been, made by one Sri M.P.Rao, Controller and that of Sri Anjaneyulu, Chief Inspector (Enquiries). The writ petitioner raises an objection for basing the findings on the statements made by Sri M.P.Rao, Controller and that of Sri Anjaneyulu, Chief Inspector (Enquiries), essentially for the reason that neither Sri M.P.Rao nor Sri Anjaneyulu, were direct witnesses to the incident, inasmuch as, they were not present at the time the incident had taken place at the reservation counter. Since, they were on duty on the same day and since the said passenger Mr. Keshav lodged a complaint, they must have heard Mr. Keshav narrating as to what had happened, according to him, between the writ petitioner and himself. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements of Sri M.P.Rao, Controller and that of Sri Anjaneyulu, Chief Inspector (Enquiries), cannot be said to be the direct witnesses to the occurrence of the event. In fact, Sri M.P. Rao, has not said anything about the use of filthy language against the passenger by the writ petitioner. He has simply pointed out that one passenger made a query with the writ petitioner as to whether Hi-tech bus to Vijayawada, which was readily available to depart on the platform, will stop at Nakrekal. The writ petitioner asked the said individual as to whether he is educated or not and further directed the said individual to proceed to platforms 1, 2 and 3, where he could find the buses to Khammam and Torrur, which will stop at Nakrekal. Sri M.P. Rao, has not, therefore, stated anything about the nature of the incident, as alleged to have taken place between the writ petitioner and the said passenger. The 3rd respondent disciplinary authority, however, imposed the punishment of removal from service by Order dated 14-09- 1999. The Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner there against to the 2nd respondent had failed. The 2nd respondent had confirmed the punishment. The view taken by the 3rd and 2nd respondents is that the writ petitioner being a responsible employee of the Corporation is supposed to conduct himself with lot of dignity and decorum, particularly, while dealing with passengers, who come to utilize the facilities offered by the Corporation. No employee of the Corporation can ill-afford to be rude or discourteous in their dispossession towards passengers and, particularly, those who hail from rural areas. It is appropriate to note that some of the passengers, who keep visiting the bus complex, some times, will get confused and consequently, they will be asking for information from the employees of the Corporation so that they may not get into wrong route buses and land themselves in trouble. The view of the 3rd and 2nd respondents is that the employees of the Corporation should be polite and they should help such people to trace the correct platform and help them to get into the appropriate bus. Instead, the writ petitioner has tried to insult the passenger by, firstly, querying him as to his educational qualifications and later on abusing him. That itself is not a very appropriate conduct on the part of the writ petitioner. If the passenger is annoyed by the behavior exhibited by the writ petitioner, it is the writ petitioner, who should be blamed. According to the 3rd and 2nd respondents, the conduct and behavior of the writ petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic consideration to be shown in that regard. When the writ petitioner has preferred a Revision to the 1st respondent – Regional Manager, the Regional Manager had truly appreciated that the nature of job performed by the writ petitioner at the Current Booking Counter, does not really require him to furnish the details of the buses that stop at Nakrekal village. But however, he found that the writ petitioner’s conduct of not being courteous and polite towards a passenger of the Corporation, should be dealt with sternly. While reinstating the writ petitioner back to duty, he imposed on him the punishment of reduction of his pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect on his future increments. It was further ordered that the period from the date of removal from service till the date he reports for duty, pursuant to his Order of reinstatement, shall be treated as period not spent on duty for all purposes. The writ petitioner, as noted supra, challenges this portion of the Order of imposing the major punishment of reduction of pay of two stages with cumulative effect and also treating the interregnum period between removal from service and reinstatement, as period not on duty, in this writ petition. The principal contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Narasimha Goud is that this is not one of those cases where the statements made by the passengers, who were traveling in buses, are recorded by the Travelling Ticket Inspectors of the Corporation and the spot explanation offered by the Conductors with regard to any adverse statements made by such passengers is dealt with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when Sri T. Keshav has lodged a complaint against the writ petitioner, he has necessarily to be examined at the domestic enquiry and until and unless he is examined, the true reasons behind such complaint cannot be elicited. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner has declined to furnish the information solicited by a passenger, which information he was not readily posted while performing his duties as a Current Booking Clerk, working at the Reservation Counter, the writ petitioner cannot be faulted. Since, the writ petitioner has disputed that he has never abused nor sought to assault the said individual, it is all the more important that such an individual should be examined to bring home the truth behind any such allegation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of sending two communications by registered post requesting the said individual to come and participate at the domestic enquiry and notwithstanding receipt of such notices, such an individual has not turned up. This itself will reveal the hollowness of the claim made by such an individual that the writ petitioner has abused him in filthy language and also sought to assault him. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that non-examination of the complainant, in these set of circumstances, would be a fatality to the disciplinary proceedings aimed against him. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon two Judgments, one rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. MOHD. ISMAIL and the other, by the Supreme Court in HARDWARI LAL v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri K. Madhava Reddy, strenuously contends that the main source of revenue for the Corporation is the patronage offered by the passengers and, therefore, every employee of the Corporation is required to conduct himself with necessary dignity and politeness towards the passengers and patrons of the Corporation. No employee can be rude or disrespectful in his attitude towards the passengers and patrons of the Corporation. If any employee indulges in rude behavior with a passenger, such incident will gravely impact the fair name and reputation of the entire Organization as well. It would bring down the reputation of the organization in the esteem of the general public. This apart, incidents of this nature will not only get magnified beyond all proportions and the image of the Corporation would be jeopardized by the rival private operators for their benefit and gain. Hence, employees of the Corporation must necessarily bestow, at all times, when they are on duty to be polite and courteous towards the passengers and patrons. The slightest of a complaint of rude behavior on the part of the employee from anyone must necessarily be dealt with sternly, lest, the spirit of misconduct can be contagious. There is no quarrel with the principle enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. MOHD. ISMAIL (cited 1 supra) and by the Supreme Court in HARDWARI LAL’s case (cited 2 supra), that the failure to examine the complainant or the material witnesses would vitiate the findings of guilt handed down to the charged employees. In the instant case, since the complainant has not been examined, it would be difficult to sustain the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the writ petitioner did abuse him by using filthy language and that he has also assaulted him. To that extent, there is no difficulty. In view of the rival submissions, the important question that falls for consideration is whether the charge of misconduct alleged against the writ petitioner is liable to be held proved and if so, what punishment should be imposed against him. The facts, which are held as established, are that the writ petitioner was assigned duty on 10th October 1998 at Current Booking Counter. He is not, therefore, posted either at the reception counter or at the enquiry counter of the Bus Station, Imliban. Hence, he is under the disadvantage of not knowing the information relating to the bus services that would stop at Nakrekal Village in Nalgonda District, which information, was actually solicited by an individual Sri T. Keshav. It is alleged against the writ petitioner that he has abused the said individual Sri T. Keshav in filthy language, and also assaulted him. These allegations hardly admit of any ambiguity. They are very grave charges. No employee of the Corporation who is required to bear decent disposition towards passengers and patrons of the Corporation can indulge in such reckless acts towards a passenger. No employee, even out of frustration, can either abuse or assault a passenger. In the instant case, except the contents of the complaint, there does not appear to be any material that was brought forth during the domestic enquiry that the writ petitioner herein has assaulted the passenger. The Chief Inspector, Picket Depot, APSRTC who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer has examined Sri M.P.Rao, Controller and Sri Ch.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Chief Inspector, during the domestic enquiry. It is stated that Sri M.P. Rao during the preliminary enquiry did allege that the writ petitioner abuse the complainant Sri T. Keshav in filthy language and also entered into heated arguments with him while on duty. However, during the course of domestic enquiry, Sri M.P. Rao has stated that the writ petitioner has asked the passenger “are you educated or not” and subsequently, involved in a heated argument with the said passenger and thus, quarreled with him. Sri Ch. S.R. Anjaneyulu, Chief Inspector was the one who has conducted the preliminary enquiry. Thus, it is clear that excepting the statement of Sri M.P. Rao at the domestic enquiry that the writ petitioner did question as to whether the complainant is an educated person or not, and involved in a heated argument with him, there is no other material. If the writ petitioner has not abused a passenger using filthy language and he has not assaulted him, then, the main thrust behind the allegations forming part of the two charges must necessarily fall to ground. However, quite surprisingly, the Enquiry Officer has returned a finding that the writ petitioner is guilty of both the charges framed against him. Based upon the said findings in the Enquiry Officer’s report, the disciplinary authority and the first appellate authority have exercised their powers. As was noted supra, the complainant has not preferred to be examined by making himself available at the domestic enquiry. In the absence of the complainant, the contents of his complaint can neither be verified nor rebutted. Therefore, the respondent Corporation ought to have produced further corroborating material before the domestic Enquiry Officer, should it be keen to derive an adverse finding against the writ petitioner with regard to the charges framed against him. Therefore, on the basis of the availability of the material on record, all that one can say is that the writ petitioner did put the question as to whether the passenger was an educated person or not and also quarreled with him by picking up an argument. This far could be said to have been established at the domestic enquiry. To the extent of this limb of a quarrelsome behaviour exhibited by the writ petitioner alone, he can be said to be guilty. As was already noted, all the employees of the Corporation are required to be courteous in their disposition towards the passengers and patrons of the respondent Corporation. To this extent, the writ petitioner is undoubtedly guilty. Beyond this, in view of the scarce material available on the record of the domestic enquiry, it will be very difficult to sustain the charge that the writ petitioner has abused the complainant in filthy language and also assaulted him. For this part of the misconduct exhibited by the writ petitioner, he deserves undoubtedly to be penalized. Regulation 8 of the APSRTC Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967 list out various punishments, which are liable to be imposed against the employees of the Corporation for their proven misconduct. The punishments range from censure to dismissal. It is, therefore, clearly discernible that the rule making authority expect that the appropriate disciplinary authority will weigh the quantum of misconduct held established and then choose the most suitable punishment that should be imposed. In the instant case, the Assistant Traffic Manager, the disciplinary authority has not made any such assessment and proceeded to impose the punishment of removal from service. The appellate authority and the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager – I, Ranga Reddy Region has confirmed the said punishment by rejecting the appeal of the writ petitioner, thorough his proceedings dated 26th November 1999, whereas the Regional Manager, Ranga Reddy Region, exercising the power of review available in terms of Regulation 29 of the APSRTC Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967, passed orders on 22nd March 2000, modifying the punishment of removal to that of reduction of his pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which shall have its cumulative effect on his future increments. The period between removal from service i.e. pursuant to the order passed on 14th September 1999 by the disciplinary authority and the order of reinstatement passed on 22nd March 2000 by the Regional Manager, be treated as period not spent on duty for all purposes. From a perusal of the order passed on 22nd March 2000 by the revisional authority, what emerges is that the Regional Manager has carefully considered the material available on record and is satisfied that the writ petitioner has been handed down too harsh and too disproportionate a punishment to the extent the charges can be said to have been proved. He has substituted the punishment of removal by reducing his pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect for a period of two years. He has also ordered the interregnum period as period not spent on duty. While one can truly appreciate the order of the Regional Manager to the extent of not treating the period of absence from duty pursuant to the order of removal passed on 14th September 1999, as period not spent on duty for all purposes, but however, what baffles me is the imposition of the major punishment of reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. The doctrine of proportionality is a ground for review of administrative or quasi-judicial decisions, has been brought into Indian jurisprudence by the Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India. The principle has been stated by the Supreme Court in the following words: “Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the “decision-making process”. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review.” Subsequently, this principle has been followed by the Supreme Court in Om Kumar v. Union of India. Therefore, when we make a careful analysis of the extent the misconduct of the writ petitioner can be said to have been established, with reference to the material collected at the domestic enquiry, it emerges that there is no material to sustain the charge relating to abuse in using filthy language and also assaulting the complainant by the petitioner. But however, the expression “abuse” is commonly understood as showing disrespect. Oxford and Webster English dictionaries defined the expression “abuse” as under: “ Abuse (Oxford dictionary): use badly or wrongly; insult; ill-treatment or misuse; insulting language. Abuse (Webster dictionary): use improperly or injuriously; misuse; to hurt by treating wrongly; injure; to speak in coarse or bad terms of.” If the writ petitioner has asked a passenger as to his educational qualifications, with a clear intonation of bearing insult implied therein, it certainly amounts to an abuse. Being very rude towards passengers of the Corporation is certainly not a tolerable conduct on the part of its employees. Any such behaviour by the employees of the Corporation in bringing bad name to the organization as a whole in the eyes of the general public and thus bring down the esteem of the organization shall not be encouraged. Therefore, to that extent, the writ petitioner deserves to be penalized. Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect, would have meet the ends of justice inasmuch as, for two continuous years, the writ petitioner would have got his pay reduced by two incremental stages. That would have pinched his purse and brought about the necessary result of discipline in him. Punishments are sanctioned to be imposed only for securing discipline and good conduct on the part of its employees. They are also sanctioned to be imposed to act as potential deterrents. Therefore, in my opinion, imposition of the penalty of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect would be a reasonably proportionate punishment to the extent of proven misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner. The Regional Manager is justified in not ordering the period between the date of removal till reinstatement as period not spent on duty for all purposes, which also will have an impact not only on the present financial position of the writ petitioner but will also have an effect on the terminal benefits, which would become payable to him at the end of the tenure of his employment, for, the said period will not be counted as qualifying service to earn him gratuity and other benefits such as provident fund, etcetera. Therefore, I modify the order passed by the 1st respondent Regional Manager to the extent of imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect to that of reduction of his pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The Writ Petition