IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17078 of 2008 Between: M. Chinnaiahm, S/o. Sri M. Subbaiah, R/o. D.No. 3/600, Rajareddy Street, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Rajampet Depot, Rajampet, Kadapa 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent its proceedings No. PA/20A (36)/06-RM 'C' Dated 05-01-2007 imposing the punishment of his annual increment which next falls due be deferred for a period of two years, which shall have eﬀect on his future increments, and the period of absence from the date of removal from service till he reports for duty be treated as not on duty for the purposing leave, wages and increments is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to law and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay his increments w.e.f., 10-9-2004 with arrears and the period of absence from the date of removal from service till he reports for duty be treated as on duty for the purpose of leave, wages and increments. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.B.MALLESWARI Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver with the A.P.S.R.T.C. While he was working at Rajampet Depot, a charge sheet was issued to him, alleging that he remained absent in the year 2004, on three occasions, without sanctioned leave. After conducting departmental enquiry, the Depot Manager, Rajampet, issued proceedings, dated 26.06.2006, directing removal of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Manager, Kadapa, was rejected on 30.10.2006. Thereupon, he approached the Regional Manager, Kadapa, the second respondent herein, by ﬁling revision. Through order, dated 05.01.2007, the second respondent partly allowed the review by setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service as Driver in Pulivendula Depot. Punishment of stoppage of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect was imposed. Absence from duty from the date of removal till the date of joining duty was directed to be treated as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave, wages and increment. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the modified punishment imposed upon him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The absence of the petitioner on three occasions was for a period of seven days, ten days and three days respectively. Even in the charge sheet, it was mentioned that his absence from 17.09.2004 to 26.09.2004 was due to his sickness. The unauthorized absence of the petitioner, certainly, would have dislocated the work of the Corporation. However, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is not so serious, as to warrant either removal or drastic reduction of the emoluments, for the rest of the career. The second respondent has already denied the back wages to the petitioner. The deferment of increment for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect would have its impact on the rest of the career as well as on the terminal beneﬁts. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the punishment imposed against the petitioner is modiﬁed to the one without cumulative effect. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in part, directing that the punishment imposed by the second respondent against the petitioner shall stand modiﬁed to the one of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative eﬀect. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07.08.2008 kdl