IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9876 of 2008 Between: M.C.Sekhar, Rtd Conductor of APSRTC, E-080256, S/o. Kurmaiah,aged 60, R/o. Mahaboobnagar , Mahaboob nagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar, 3 The Divisional Manager/Dy.C.T.M. APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar,Mahaboobnagar Dist. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of petitioners pay shall be fixed in the minimum time scale of Rs.3365-105-4625-115-5200-130- 6500-140-7900 and the intervening period from the date of removal to till the reports to duty is treated as Not on duty for the purposes like leave and increments vide proc.No.PA/19(47)05-RM(MB), Mahaboobnagar, Dt.15-4-2006 while confirming the Removal order in Proc No.P1/1(1)/05-DVM;NGKL, Dt.15.9.2005 as illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction , contrary to law and as such liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to pay the differed wages and the benefits along with interest forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 23.03.2005, alleging certain acts of indiscipline. The petitioner submitted his explanation and the Divisional Manager, the third respondent herein, ordered domestic enquiry. On the basis of the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry, the third respondent passed an order, dated 15.09.2005, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The said order was challenged in the appeal before the Regional Manager, the second respondent. Through his orders, dated 15.04.2006, the second respondent had set aside the order of removal, but imposed the punishment of reduction of pay scale of the petitioner to the minimum time scale. He has also directed that the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement shall be treated as not on duty, for all purposes, like leave and increments. The petitioner was reinstated into service soon thereafter and retired from service in September, 2006. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the second respondent and alleges that the same has resulted in substantial monetary loss of retirement benefits and he approached this Court seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is about his failure to report to duty at Kalwakurthy Depot, on being transferred from Mahaboobnagar. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.86 of 2005 in relation to the orders of transfer. The third respondent felt that there was no justification for the petitioner in not reporting duty and, accordingly, directed his removal. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the second respondent was convinced that the order of removal is not warranted and modified the same to the one of reduction of pay scale to the minimum. As observed earlier, the only allegation against the petitioner is about to report to duty at Kalwakurthy Deport. It is not as if he remained idle or resorted to acts of insubordination. To work out his remedies, he had approached this Court and in the process, his reporting to duty was delayed. Though reference was made by the third respondent to the orders passed in the writ petition as well as writ appeal, the implication thereof was not discussed in the order. The second respondent himself felt that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate. It becomes debatable as to whether it was open to the third respondent to treat the absence of the petitioner as an act of misconduct, when the same was occasioned in the process of the petitioner working out his remedies before this court by filing a writ petition. At any rate, reduction of salary of the petitioner to the minimum of pay scale, when he was about to retire from service, virtually deals a fatal blow in the context of determination of the retirement benefits, since the last drawn pay happens to be the basis for calculation of the benefits. For the minor lapse, if any, on the part of the petitioner, he can be denied the benefit of back wages for the period during which he was out of service. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the punishment imposed by the second respondent against the petitioner, while setting aside the order passed by the third respondent, shall stand modified to the one of reinstatement into service with continuity of service only for the purpose of calculation of the retirement benefits, but without back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.05.2008. kdl hereafter ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}