HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.10949 of 2011 Date: April 20, 2011 Between: D.S.Vasulu … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC and others.… Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.10949 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing the proceedings No.PA/675(129)/2008-RM(O), dated 09.04.2009, and letter No.Steno 19(24)/08-DCTM, dated 10.06.2008 respectively, insofar as the deferment of annual increments of the petitioner for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement into service as not on duty for the purpose of leave and wages, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to release the annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect by treating the period from removal to the date of reinstatement into service as on duty for the purpose of leave and wages. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in respondent Corporation. He was charge sheeted for collecting the ticket amount worth Rs.3/- and failing to issue ticket to a passenger. Challenging the charge memo, dated 15.10.2007, the petitioner had given explanation stating that the passenger had not paid any amount to him and therefore, the question of collecting money from the passenger and not issuing the ticket does not arise. After conducting enquiry, respondent No.3 removed the petitioner from service vide proceedings No.02/95(188)/2007-GDLR, dated 07.02.2008. On appeal, the proceedings, dated 07.02.2008, was modified by respondent No.2 as reinstatement into service by imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and treating the period between removal and the date of reinstatement into service as not on duty for the purpose of leave and wages. On revision the same was confirmed by respondent No.1. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the earliest point of time the petitioner had taken a defence that he did not collect an amount of Rs.3/- from the passenger and therefore, the question of not issuing the ticket does not arise; and that this aspect of the case has not been considered by the respondents. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that at the time of spot checking the passenger had given a categorical statement that he paid the fare to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to issue the ticket and therefore, the appellate authority as well as the Revisional authority has taken into consideration that aspect and imposed punishment against the petitioner, which needs no interference by this Court as the punishment imposed by the appellate authority is inconsonance with the proved misconduct. 5. The charge levelled against the petitioner is that he collected fare of Rs.3/- from one passenger and failed to issue ticket to him. No doubt, at the earliest point of time, the passenger stated that he paid an amount of Rs.3/- to the petitioner but he failed to issue ticket to him. That aspect of the case has been considered by the disciplinary authority who found the petitioner guilty and ordered for removal from service. That order has been modified by the appellate authority stating that though the petitioner failed to issue the ticket, taking into consideration his previous service and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner and ordered reinstatement into service. The observations of the appellate authority would clearly go to show that the petitioner did not issue ticket worth Rs.3/- though he collected fare. Though there is inaction on the part of the petitioner in issuing the ticket, the appellate authority ought to have taken a lenient view considering the fact that through out his service there was no blemish of collecting the fare from the passengers and not issuing the tickets, or that he was found guilty of misconduct for any other charges except the present one. The punishment or penalty to be imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Although the choice and quantum of punishment is within the discretion of the authorities, yet it must suit the offence and it should not be unduly harsh. If really he had any intention to appropriate the fare, he would have collected some more amounts from other passengers and he would not have issued the tickets. Considering these aspects, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect will be having a serious monetary repercussion through out the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the punishment can be modified with that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any other monetary benefits by virtue of this order. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J APRIL 20, 2011. YVL