IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos : 11754, 11755 and 11756 of 2009 W.P.No. 11754 of 2009 Between: Babu Miya, s/o. Mehaboob Ali, APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar District, A.P. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in recovering an amount of Rs. 25,927/- from the petitioner's salary in concerned with missing to ticks blocks is bad, arbitrary, illegal and against to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the circulars and judgments of this Hon'ble Court by setting aside the final order No. 02/95(1)/2009-NGKL, dt. 30-1-2009 of respondent herein and consequently direct the respondent to repay the recovered amounts to the petitioner herein by stopping further recovery. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI W.P.No : 11755 of 2009 Between: G.Kurmaiah S/o.Pochanna APSRTC , Gadwal Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District, AP ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Gadwal Bus Depot Mahaboobnagar District, AP .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in recovering an amount of Rs.9,192/- from the petitioner salary in concerned with missing of tickets tray along with tray box is bad arbitrary, illegal, and against to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the circulars and judgments of this Hon`ble Court by setting aside the office order No.M1812(1)/2006-GDL dated 20.11.2006 of respondent herein and consequently direct the respondent to pay the recovered amount to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI W.P.No : 11756 of 2009 Between: R. Manyam S/o. Venkatanna APSRTC, Gadwal Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gadwal Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar District, A.P. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in recovering an amount of Rs.9,759/- from the petitioner's salary in concerned with missing of tickets tray along with tray box is bad, arbitrary, illegal and against to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the circulars and judgments of this Hon'ble Court by setting aside the office order No.M1/812(10)/2006-GDL, dt. 02.01.2007 of respondent herein and consequently direct the respondent to pay the recovered amount to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court at the stage of admission made the following COMMON ORDER: All these Writ Petitions can be heard and decided together, as the issue involved in all these cases is one and the same. Heard Sri P. Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and with her consent, all the three Writ Petitions have been taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself. The writ petitioners are working as Conductors with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). At the time the Conductors commence performing their duties, each of them will be supplied with the tickets of various denominations to be issued to the commuter passengers en route. If the Conductors lose any of the tickets or the ticket tray due to lack of adequate care exhibited by them, then, the APSRTC subjects them to the disciplinary proceedings. In all these three cases, the writ petitioners were subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In Writ Petition No. 11754 of 2009, the Depot Manager, Nagarkurnool Depot passed final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner therein on 30th January 2009 imposing the penalty of recovery to the tune of Rs.25,927/- towards the cost for causing loss of tickets and accordingly, the said penalty amount was sought to be recovered from his salary in 20 monthly installments. Similarly, insofar as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11755 of 2009 is concerned, the Depot Manager, Gadwal Depot passed orders on 20th November 2006 directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.9,192/- from the salary of the writ petitioner in the said case in 12 equal installments, commencing from the month of December 2006. Insofar as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11756 of 2009 is concerned, the Depot Manager, Gadwal Depot passed orders on 2nd January 2007, proposing to recover a sum of Rs.9,759/- in 12 equal installments from the salary of the said writ petitioner commencing from the month of January 2007. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation is right in pointing out that insofar as the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 11755 and 11756 of 2009 are concerned, the penal amount imposed could have possibly been completely recovered and all the three writ petitioners have also failed to avail the appellate remedies available to them under the Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules of the APSRTC, but however, since the question relating to the competence of the disciplinary authority to order to recover the face value of the tickets lost by the Conductors has since been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3746 of 2000 (Ch.P. Reddy v. APSRTC), I am inclined to entertain these Writ Petitions, notwithstanding the failure to avail the alternative remedy. It is pointed out consistently that refusal to entertain the Writ Petitions, when an effective alternative remedy is available, is a rule devised and imposed by the Courts for the purpose of regulating their own exercise. It is not an absolute bar in terms of exercise of such jurisdiction. When once a principle of law has already been decided by a Constitutional Court and when once such a judgment becomes final, it is only appropriate that a public sector undertaking like that of the APSRTC was required to follow the same uniformly while dealing with similar issues. It is also essential that the least scope for litigation should be left by the model employers. Hence, I have exercised the discretion and entertained these Writ Petitions. As was already noticed, this very question has fallen for consideration and the same has been dealt with by Hon’ble Sri Jusice Bilal Nazki in the following manner: “……..The charge is essentially of losing the tickets. The petitioner cannot be punished for any other charge. I have also gone through the C.C.A. Regulations. The penalties are prescribed under Regulation 8 of the Regulations. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondents as to under which regulation the petitioner has been punished, she referred to clause (v) of Regulation 8(1) which lays down; “8. Penalties: (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon an employee, namely; (i) to (iv)……(v) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders;” Under this provision, if the Corporation faces a pecuniary loss by an employee’s negligence, the amount lost by the Corporation can be recovered wholly or partly. In no case, an amount more than the amount which was lost by the Corporation can be recovered from the negligent official. Therefore, clause (v) of Regulation 8(1) also does not permit the Corporation to impose a penalty which is more than the amount of the loss the Corporation has suffered. Admittedly, in this case, the respondents have not suffered loss of the amount which the tickets could fetch if they were sold to the passengers traveling in the buses. They have only suffered the loss which was incurred by the Corporation in their printing and stacking, that cost is also given in the impugned order. The Corporation has suffered a loss of Rs.400/- towards printing value and Rs.284/- on account of the cost of the tray, that makes it Rs.684/- and this Court while entertaining the Writ Petition had allowed the respondents to recover Rs.1,500/- from the petitioner. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed, but at the same time, it is directed that if any amount has been recovered from the petitioner the respondents shall retain the amount which actually they lost because of the negligence of the petitioner the balance shall be paid back to the petitioner and if the amount is not recovered so far, the amount be recovered from the petitioner.” Following the above ratio, I also direct the respondents to impose a penalty of recovery of Rs.1,500/- from each of the petitioners. Apart from recovering the loss of value of the tickets representing the printing charges and stationery costs, the petitioners, who were prima facie guilty of negligence while performing duties, also need to be disciplined, so that the necessary degree of care would be exhibited by them at all times while they are on duty. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to impose the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment at the relevant point of time without cumulative effect, on the petitioners, for a period of six months. This punishment will meet the ends of justice. Such of the amounts, which have been already recovered from the writ petitioners beyond what has already been ordered be returned in one lump sum within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, these three Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 17th June 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}