THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4596 and 4604 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: Since both these writ petitions are filed questioning the order passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, based on the common enquiry report conducted against the petitioners, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Since facts are same in both these writ petitions, for the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.4596 of 2005. 2. The petitioner is the driver working in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) and is attached to Tadipathri Depot. During the year 2000, based on a complaint received by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner has accepted bribe from the private bus operators on the route from Tadipathri to Pulivendula with the connivance of the private bus operators resulting in loss of revenue to the Corporation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as contemplated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. In the disciplinary proceedings, two charges were framed against the petitioner, which read as under: “CHARGE No.1: For having received regular mamools from the Private Operators on the route Pulivendula during the months January, 1999 and February, 1999 and also you have operated the APSRTC Buses behind the private Buses intentionally thereby helping the private operators to carry overload of passengers with the result the legitimate earnings ought to be received by APSRTC Buses of Tadipatri Depot are looted by private operators and Corporation has sustained losses, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (iii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. CHARGE No.2: For having operated the APSRTC Buses behind the private Buses during the months of January, 1999 and February, 1999 whereby you have not achieved targets for earning 08 times for 11 duties in January, 1999 and 06 times of 07 duties in February, 1999 with malafide intention to help the Private operators resulting the legitimate earnings by APSRTC on said route was not realized by Tadipatri Depot which clearly reveals that you have accepted the mamools from the private operators and you have given scope to carry over-load to the private operators, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xvii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. Since the petitioner has filed explanation denying the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet, enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry officer. Subsequently, based on the report submitted by the enquiry officer holding the charges proved, after issuing show cause notice, the impugned proceedings No.01/118(7)/1998-TDP, dated 29.3.2001, were issued by the 1st respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, imposing the punishment of reduction in the Basic Pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which shall have the effect on future increments. As against the said order, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal to the 2nd respondent, who is the appellate authority. Even the appellate authority also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide his orders in proceedings No.TY./19(317)/2001/DVM-A, dated 28.9.2002, by recording a finding that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Questioning the validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any evidence in proof of the charges levelled against the petitioner, recording of a finding against the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings and imposing the punishment on him is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel also submits that the charges framed are vague and there is no evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of the said charges, but inspite of the same, based on the preliminary/ vigilance enquiry reports, the enquiry officer has recorded his findings, holding the charges proved. The learned counsel further submits that merely because the revenue collections were low in particular months i.e., January and February, 1999, there cannot be any inference of accepting bribe by the petitioner so as to record a finding that the petitioner has accepted the bribe from the private bus operators, and to impose the punishment. He also submitted that the Corporation buses will run in fixed schedules and if the private operators operate their buses in advance to the timings fixed by the Corporation, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that during the two months i.e., January and February, 1999, there was a fall in the revenue of the Corporation, and there was also a general complaint to the effect that the petitioner and other drivers have connived with the private bus operators to drive the buses of the Corporation behind the buses of the private operators, and hence, the buses of the private operators were over-crowded, which resulted in loss of revenue to the Corporation. 7. In both the cases, the impugned orders are passed based on the enquiry report in proceedings No.01/118/7/98-TDP, dated 19.2.2001. Precisely, from the disciplinary proceedings initiated and the charges framed, the allegations against the petitioners are that they have accepted bribe from the private bus operators and intentionally drove the bus behind the buses of the private operators during the months of January and February, 1999, which resulted in loss of revenue to the Corporation. In the explanation submitted by the petitioners, they have denied the acceptance of such bribe and also pleaded that they are operating the buses as per the time schedule fixed by the Corporation. It was the case of the petitioners that in view of the speed locks, which were fixed to the buses of the Corporation, they had no discretion to drive the buses at more than the locked speed. 8. During the course of arguments, the file relating to the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioners, is placed before this Court. A perusal of the enquiry report, dated 19.2.2001, based on which, the impugned orders are passed, reveals that only on the ground that the petitioners have not fulfilled the targets fixed during the months of January and February, 1999, an inference is drawn against them that they had connived with the private bus operators. Except that, there is no other legal or acceptable evidence to record a finding that the petitioners are responsible for loss of revenue to the Corporation during the months of January and February, 1999. Even with regard to the allegation of bribe, the finding recorded is only based on the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Department. Inasmuch as the Vigilance Department has recorded a finding that the petitioners have accepted bribe from the private bus operators, solely basing on the said report, the same finding is recorded in the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. 9. In this regard, it is to be noticed that once the enquiry is started in the disciplinary proceedings, findings, if any, adverse to the delinquent employee, have to be recorded only with reference to the enquiry during the enquiry proceedings, but not with reference to any preliminary enquiry nor any vigilance enquiry conducted by the Department. Before conducting enquiry by the Vigilance Department, undisputedly, the petitioners were not given any notice or opportunity to put-forth their case. Therefore, in the absence of any legal or acceptable evidence, the very finding recorded with regard to the acceptance of bribe by the petitioners from the private bus operators is perverse and illegal. 10. Further, even with regard to running of buses of the Corporation behind the buses of private operators, there is no evidence at all so as to fix responsibility on the petitioners for such losses. The very charges framed are vague and there is no evidence in support of the said charges. Inspite of the same, the enquiry officer, in a routine and mechanical manner, has recorded findings against the petitioners with regard to the guilt of the petitioners. 11. I have also perused a copy of the order, dated 28.9.2002, passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority also did not consider the appeals of the petitioners in proper perspective and rejected the same in a routine and mechanical manner. Therefore, both the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings No.01/118(7)/1998-TDP, dated 29.3.2001, issued by the 1st respondent, as confirmed in proceedings No.TY./19(317)/2001/DVM-A, dated 28.9.2002, issued by the 2nd respondent. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary and refix the pay of the petitioners, within a period of six weeks from today. No order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 23.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4596 and 4604 of 2005 23.06.2010 (Msr)