IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 11286 of 2004 Between: J.P. Venkaiah S/o. Late Sri Sathaiah % APSRTC Bus Depot Manuguru, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot Manuguru, Khammam District. 2 The Divisional Manager,APSRTC, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Khammam, Khammam 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 a Writ Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing order dt. 03.04.2003 and as modified by the 2nd and 3rd respondent and communicated by order dt. 19.12.2003 and 31.03.29004 as arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents to regularise the pay of the petitioner . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in passing order dated 03-04-2003 and as modified by the second and third respondents and communicated by order dated 19-12-2003 and 31-03-2004 as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in APSRTC and presently working as ADC under the control of the first respondent. On 21-11-2002 he performed his duties during from 16:00 hours onwards and when he was relieved at 23:00 hours sum other ADC had taken charge and he went to home. Again when he reported for duty on 22-11-2002 at 16:00 hours it was noticed that a ticket block bearing No.023/739900 of Rs.70/- denomination was found missing in the earning section. Generally there will be three shifts for ADC’s i.e. 16:00, 22:00 and 8:00 hours. When he performed his duty on 21-11-2002 at 16:00 hours and when he reported for the same shift on 22-11-2002 in between two ADC’s have worked in the earning section. Based on a report of the depot clerk dated 10-12-2002 the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 11-12-2002 enumerating that “for having missing the ticket block bearing No.023/739800 of Rs.70/- denomination on 22-11-2002 while you were performing your duty as ADC in Earning Section, which is a misconduct under regulation No.28 (v) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963”. In reply to the said charge sheet he submitted explanation stating that before handed over the charge the stock register was verified by the officials and when he reported on 22-11-2002 he himself infomrmed the depot clerk that ticket block is missing and as such he denied the charge. Therefore, his case is that the first respondent without properly considering his explanation issued the show cause notice dated 21-03-2003 proposing to recover Rs.7,000/- towards loss of tickets. Accordingly, the first respondent passed the order dated 03-04-2003 directing recovery of Rs.7,000/- in 12 monthly equal instalments besides imposing fine of Rs.10/- towards printing charge of the missed tickets block. Thereafter, he filed an appeal to the second respondent on 24-04-2003. Since the appeal was pending for a long time the first respondent had recovered the said amount for a period of six months. Finally the appellate authority passed an order dated 02- 12-2003 setting aside the order of recovery dated 03-04-2003 and directed to refund the amount which has been already recovered. However, surprisingly, the second respondent further directed that for the same negligence, directed deferment of increment by six months with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same he filed a review petition on 05-01-2004 before the third respondent. The third respondent by an order dated 31-03-2004 set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 02-12-2003 and confirmed the order dated 03-04-2003 of the original authority recovering a sum of Rs.7,000/- for loss of ticket block. Therefore, the orders of the respondents 1 to 3 dated 03-04-2003, 02-12- 2003 and 05-01-2004 respectively arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and also the same is contrary to the judgment of this Court passed in Ch. P. REDDY v. APSRTC, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER [1]. According to the said judgment the Corporation is only entitled to recover the cost of the printing charges of the tickets/tray lost due to the negligence of the staff. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment and accordingly this petition may be allowed. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation says no objection and agreed that the instant petition is squarely covered by the said judgment. In the said judgment it is held as under: “if the Corporation faces a pecuniary loss by an employee’s negligence the amount lost by the Corporation can be recovered wholly or partly. In no case, an amount more than the amount which was lost by the Corporation can be recovered from the negligent official. Therefore, clause (v) of Regulation 8 also does not permit the Corporation to impose a penalty which is more than the amount of the loss the Corporation has suffered. Admittedly, in this case the respondents have not suffered loss of the amount which the tickets could fetch if they were sold to the passengers traveling in the buses. They have only suffered the loss which was incurred by the Corporation in their printing and stacking, that cost is also given in the impugned order. The Corporation has suffered a loss of Rs.400/- towards printing value and Rs.284/- on account of the cost of the tray, that makes it Rs.684/- and this Court while entertaining the writ petition had allowed the respondents to recover Rs.1500/- from the petitioner. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed, but at the same time it is directed that if any amount has been recovered from the petitioner the respondents shall retain the amount which actually they lost because of the negligence of the petitioner the balance shall be paid back to the petitioner and if the amount is not recovered so far, the amount be recovered from the petitioner.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned counsel on either side represents that this petition is squarely covered by the said judgment, I am of the view that following the said judgment this petition can be disposed of. Accordingly, following the said judgment this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 16-06-2008 LSK [1] 2000(5) ALD 93