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 MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 19698 of 2000 Between: A.Rama Chary, E.39643, S/o Sri A.Seetharam Chary, Godavarikhani Depot, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., Godavarikhani Depot, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 The Regional Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Office order No.M1/439(1)/99-GDK dt 23-8-2000 issued by the Depot, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 1st Respondent herein, ordering recovery of sum of Rs. 25,196-05 paise from the salary of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, null and void, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification. Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : Order: In this writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 23-08-2000 passed in proceedings No.M1/439(1)/99-GD whereby an amount of Rs.25,196-05 ps. was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 45 instalments. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1972 in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. He is presently working as Traffic Inspector Grade-III in Godavarikhani Depot. During the period from 01-06-1998 to 30-06-1999, he was posted as Depot Clerk (Tools & Plants). After he was transferred from the post of Depot Clerk (Tools & Plants), an order dated 16-12-1999 was passed stating that he has not handed over tools and plants while handover over the charge on 24-08-1999. As such, he was asked to handover the same within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the said order. However, on the ground that inspite of issuing such notice he has not handed over the said items, a notice dated 11-02-2000 was issued to him demanding an amount of Rs.25,196-05 ps., on receipt of which he filed representation dated 21- 02-2000, stating that he was not given charge of the said items, and, as such, he is not responsible for the loss of those items and no amount can be recovered from him. Referring to the said representation, a charge memo dated 31-05-2000 was issued stating that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing. The said charge memo reads as under: “Charge No.1: For having failed to return the T&P items as mentioned above, which amounts to misconduct u/.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. Charge No.2: For your gross negligence in your duties for not handing over the T&P items which amounts to misconduct u/r.28(ix)(a)(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 3. Even after receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner has filed explanation dated 06-06-2000 reiterating his earlier stand. In spite of the same, no enquiry is conducted and straightaway the impugned order is passed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 5. In this writ petition, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was not given charge of the items alleged to be missing, in spite of the same, recovery of the value of the said items is sought to be made from him without conducting any enquiry and without recording any findings about his negligence or responsibility. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing for the respondent-Corporation that in view Regulations 8(1)(v) and 12(13) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (‘the Regulations’ for brevity), the loss caused to the Corporation on account of negligence by the employee is a minor penalty and, as such, as per the Regulations, recovery orders are issued by issuing show cause notice calling for explanation. 7. Part-IV deals with ‘Discipline and Penalties’ wherein Regulation 8 deals with ‘Penalties’. Regulation 8(1)(v) of the Regulations deals with imposition of a penalty of recovery from the pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders. Regulation 12 of the Regulations deals with ‘Procedure for imposing penalties’. For the purpose of imposing penalty as provided under Regulation 8(1)(v) of the Regulations, though there is no need to conduct a regular enquiry, but the procedure contemplated under Regulation 12(1) of the Regulations reads as under: “No order imposing any of the penalties specified in items (i) to (vi) of Clause (1) of regulation 8 shall be passed except after- (a)the employee concerned is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and is given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; (b) and such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the authority imposing the penalty. (c) The record of proceeding in such cases shall include a copy of the intimation to the employee of the proposal to take action against him, a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him, his representation, if any, the findings arrived at on the allegation with reasons therefor and the orders passed on the case by the authority competent to impose the penalty. 8. Therefore, as per the procedure contemplated under Regulation 12(1) of the Regulations, on conclusion of the enquiry, findings on the allegations, with reference to the explanation offered by the employee, are required to be recorded before imposing any penalty. In the instant case, in spite of the explanation dated 21-02-2000 offered by the petitioner and his subsequent explanation dated 06-06-2000, not even a single reason is recorded in the impugned order dated 23-08-2000 for ordering recovery of the amount from the deceased/first petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of K. Subba Rao V. APSRTC[1], wherein a learned single Judge has set aside the demand notice in a similar set of facts on the ground of non-conducting of enquiry and so the said judgment supports the case on hand on all fours. In any event, in the case on hand, though a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, no finding is recorded either for his negligence or for his responsibility with regard to the missing tools and plants when he was in charge of those items. In the absence of recording of any findings, which are pre-requisite as per the procedure contemplated under Regulation 12(1) of the Regulations, no order of recovery of any amount from the employee can be made. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the respondent-Corporation vide proceedings No.M1/439(1)/99-GDK dated 23-08-2000, whereby an amount of Rs.25,196-05 p.s. was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 45 instalments, is set aside. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice R. Subhash Reddy. November 13, 2008 CVRK/MRR [1] 1999 (5) ALT 570