THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.31 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Sri G.M,J) 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.2165 of 2002 whereby the learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein while upholding the ﬁndings of the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal No.II, Hyderabad passed in I.D.No.105 of 1996, but modiﬁed the punishment directing reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent herein with continuity of service but without back wages and imposing penalty of stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect. 2 The facts, in brief, are that the ﬁrst respondent herein was appointed as a driver in APSRTC on temporary basis on 02.01.1981. While so, on 13.07.1992, a complaint was made by another driver of APSRTC against the ﬁrst respondent basing on which, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 21.12.1992, which reads as follows:- “For having assaulted and threatened to murder one Sri A.Shankaraiah, E.77703 Driver, Nalgonda Depot in the presence of Sri P.Goverdhan, E.78362, driver, Sri A.A.Abrar, E.73201, driver and Sri K.V.Reddy, E.67964, Conductor in the premises of DM’s oﬃce, Nalgonda while he was going out from DM’s oﬃce on 13- 07-92 which is misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28 (xi & xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 3 The ﬁrst respondent submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet and as the explanation was not convincing, in order to give an opportunity to the ﬁrst respondent, an Enquiry Oﬃcer was appointed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the charges, which was also communicated to the ﬁrst petitioner. In spite of several notices issued by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, the ﬁrst respondent did not attend the enquiry and, therefore, the Enquiry Oﬃcer conducted an ex-parte enquiry into the charges and submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority holding that the ﬁrst respondent was found guilty of the above said charge. 4 The disciplinary authority, basing on the enquiry report, issued a show-cause notice of dismissal from service, dated 22.03.1993, and sent the same to the ﬁrst respondent along with a copy of enquiry oﬃcer’s report. The ﬁrst respondent, having received the same on 05.04.1993, failed to submit any explanation and, therefore, he was removed from service vide order of the appellant, dated 19.05.1993. Aggrieved thereby, the ﬁrst respondent ﬁled an appeal and also a review and the same were also dismissed. Questioning the order of dismissal, the first respondent filed I.D.No.105 of 1996 before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad i.e. second respondent herein. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, vide its impugned order, dated 31.08.2000, held that the misconduct committed by the ﬁrst respondent is serious in nature, but the punishment imposed is severe and accordingly, modiﬁed the punishment directing reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent with continuity of service but without back wages and imposing penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative eﬀect. Aggrieved thereby, the ﬁrst respondent herein ﬁled the Writ Petition contending that even the modiﬁed punishment imposed by the Tribunal is disproportionate and too harsh. 5 The learned single Judge, while concurring with the ﬁndings given by the Tribunal to the eﬀect that inasmuch as M.W.3 stated that on an earlier occasion, the ﬁrst respondent and the complainant abused each other, but the punishment imposed is too shocking and severe and that the act of the ﬁrst respondent quarrelling with another employee constitutes serious misconduct, modiﬁed the punishment imposed by the Tribunal, directing reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent with continuity of service but without back wages and imposed penalty of stoppage of four increments without cumulative eﬀect. As stated supra, aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the APSRTC. 6 Heard. Perused the order impugned in this appeal. 7 As seen from the order impugned it is to be seen that though the Tribunal held that the act of the ﬁrst respondent quarrelling with another employee constitutes serious misconduct, it modiﬁed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority to that of directing reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent with continuity of service but without back wages and imposed a penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative eﬀect. However, the learned single Judge, having perused the material available on record modiﬁed the said punishment to that of without cumulative eﬀect, in our opinion, does not call for any interference. Since it is also represented that the ﬁrst respondent herein has already retired from service, at this stage we do not wish to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 8 Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:22.11.2011 ------------------------------------ NOOT Y RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Kvsn