THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1376 OF 2006 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been preferred against the orders passed by the Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’), on 24.12.2005, exercising the power of appellate authority and modifying the punishment of reversion for a period of two years imposed by the Executive Director of the Corporation to that of reversion up to 31.01.2006, the date on which the petitioner would have normally retired from the services of the Corporation, on attaining the age of superannuation. The facts, which are relevant for our enquiry, are: The writ petitioner was working as Depot Manager of Koilkuntla Depot of APSRTC from 05.07.2002 onwards. A news item appeared in one of the daily newspapers on 11.01.2003, pointing out certain irregularities committed by the writ petitioner. Finding prima facie material behind the allegations, the petitioner was initially placed under suspension pending enquiry on 02.05.2003. Four specific instances of allegations have been thrown against the writ petitioner and the enquiry was asked to be conducted by the Divisional Manager, Kadapa. Based upon the report submitted by the Divisional Manager, Kadapa, on 01.08.2003 and after making available a copy of the said report to the petitioner herein, a show cause notice was issued on 20.09.2003, proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service and notwithstanding the detailed explanation offered by the writ petitioner, punishment of removal from service was imposed on 27.10.2003. At that stage, the writ petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 23199 of 2003 before this Court, which Writ Petition was allowed on 20.12.2004 and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration. The management of the APSRTC carried the matter in appeal by instituting Writ Appeal No. 217 of 2005 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.03.2005. Thereafter, the matter was re-examined by the Executive Director and by his order dated 09.08.2005, he imposed the punishment of reversion to the post of Assistant Manager (Traffic) for a period of two years and re-instated the writ petitioner. Against that order, the writ petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.23163 of 2005 which was disposed of on 27.10.2005, requiring the writ petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the orders of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The writ petitioner hence preferred an appeal on 10.11.2005, which was decided by the Managing Director on 24.12.2005 reducing the period of currency of the punishment from two years only up to 31.01.2006, the date on which he would have attained the age of superannuation. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the orders that the writ petitioner has passed are all quasi-judicial orders and after exercising proper discretion by him. He was never prompted by any motive or any other consideration before passing those orders and in fact, the allegation levelled against the writ petitioner that he has passed those orders actuated by corrupt practices has been held as not established during the course of enquiry. It is contended by the learned counsel that the writ petitioner has maintained a clean record of service spanning nearly three decades to the Corporation and an unjust and harsh punishment has been meted out to him by reverting him to the post of Assistant Manager (Traffic). The entire material gathered by the Enquiry Officer did reveal that the writ petitioner has not exercised proper discretion while exercising disciplinary control over his subordinate employees. To that extent, the charge has been held as established. The writ petitioner being a disciplinary authority himself has not carried out the said function with due diligence and required efficiency. Therefore, he himself had to be disciplined. The disciplinary authority namely the Executive Director, in his order of punishment dated 09.08.2005, has considered the entire material very objectively. This is visible from the following finding recorded, giving benefit to the petitioner, with regard to that particular limb of the charge, which is having a serious component. “……..The other part of the charge that he had utilized the services of one Sri S. Parthasarathi, SA(P) of his depot to pass on the information to the above named conductor to negotiate with him for paying the bribe amount assuring him to modify the proposed punishment is not established for want of substantial evidence since nobody admits as having paid the bribe amount to the authorities especially when the obligation is done favourably to the advantage of the person concerned.” Similar was the benefit accorded to the petitioner with regard to the limbs of the other charges also. Taking these factors into account, the Executive Director reverted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager (Traffic) for a period of two years. The only error that the Executive Director of the Corporation committed was not to have noticed the fact that the writ petitioner was likely to retire from service of the Corporation by 31.01.2006 which was only six months away from the time the said order was passed. Therefore, the appellate authority to that extent has modified the punishment. In the absence of any attack that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as accepted by the disciplinary authority, are not supported by any evidence on record or that they are perverse, it is not open to this Court to substitute its opinion to that of the disciplinary authority. The evidence gathered by the Enquiry Officer can be re- looked into, if a serious challenge is thrown that the material available on record will not lend support to any such findings. Otherwise, re- appreciation of evidence is not permissible under the judicial review exercise. I , therefore, do not consider that this is one such case where the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as accepted by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, with regard to that part of the charges, which are held as established, can be described or said to be perverse findings. To the extent of the proven quantum of misconduct, reversion to a lower post cannot be described as disproportionate either. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the punishment imposed by the respondents on the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition is therefore, devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 10th February 2011 ksld