IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26395 of 2000 Between: S.S.John, S/o. Yesuratnam, A.P.S.R.T.C., Chilakaluripet. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur. 2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur. 3 The Depot Manager, Chilakaluripet, A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot, Chilakalauripet, 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, or order more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 30/03/2000 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 19/04/1999 and the order of the third respondent dated 30/01/1998 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially declare that the punishment imposed is highly excessive and not basing on any tangible evidence before the authorities and further pay to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits by setting aside the punishment as unsustainable. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.M. Subhan Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. C. Prakash Reddy (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner, a conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 30-03-2000 passed by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur, whereby the orders dated 19-04-1999 and 30-01-1998 passed by the second and third respondent, respectively, are confirmed. 2. The petitioner was appointed as conductor in the APSRTC and was attached to Chilakaluripeta depot of Guntur District. On 03-05-1997, he was conducting the bus bearing No.AEZ-8150, on the route Chilakaluripeta to Guntur. While so, on 05-05-1997, one Sri G. Hanumantha Rao, lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that he boarded the aforesaid bus on 03-05-1997 and paid Rs.10/- to the petitioner against the requisite fare of Rs.4.50 ps., however the petitioner did not return the balance amount of Rs.5.50 ps. to him at the alighting stage, i.e., Boyapalem, and on the other hand abused and pushed him out of the bus. Based on the aforesaid complaint, a charge sheet dated 06-05-1997 was issued to him framing the following charge: “For having failed to refund the refundable amount of Rs.5.50 to a passenger by name G. Hanumantharao resident of Unnava who boarded the bus at Ch’peta and bound for Boyapalem on 5.5.97, while you are conducting bus no.8150 on route Ch’pet-Guntur. Also you have abused the said passenger and pushed him out at Boyapalem stage, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. In view of denial of the charge by the petitioner, a regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer recorded a finding that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Based on the enquiry report, without giving any further show cause notice and opportunity to the petitioner, order dated 30-01-1998 is passed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of denial of the charge framed against him, without any valid and supporting material, the charge is held proved by the enquiry officer. It is stated that the order dated 30-01-1998 is passed in violation of Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. 5. The Law Officer of APSRTC has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents generally denying the allegations leveled by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that though the petitioner was given opportunity to participate in the enquiry, for the reasons best known to him, he did not attend the enquiry. It is further stated that as much as the enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved, based on the same, the order dated 30-01-1998 is passed imposing on him the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years, with its effect on future increments, and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the said order, as confirmed by the authorities in appeal and further review. 6. In the judgment in the case of Kulwanth Sing Gill V. State of Punjab[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the punishment which results in reduction of pay is a major punishment. In the instant case, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is to be treated as the one classified under Regulation 8 (1) (vii) of the Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. If the punishment is under Regulation 8 (1) (vii) of the said Regulations, the same cannot be imposed unless the procedure prescribed under Regulation 12 of the Regulations is followed. However, in the present case, after the enquiry report is submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, without issuing any further notice and opportunity, as required under the Regulations, passed order dated 30- 01-1998. In normal course, the matter is to be remanded to the authorities concerned for fresh consideration, but taking into account that the order imposing punishment was passed as early as in the year 1998 and the writ petition is also pending for the last about 9 years, I am of the view that the interests of justice would be met if the punishment is further modified. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the punishment imposed on the petitioner shall be read as stoppage of increments for a period of two years without any effect on future increments. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the light of the directions referred above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. March 02, 2009 MRR [1] 1990 (1) LLJ 635