IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 20729 of 2000 Between: S.C. Reddy S/o. Thimma Reddy, R/o. 1-6-66/2 Subhash Nagar, Mahabubnagar, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Coroporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Coroporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar, 3 A.P. State Road Transport Coroporation, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, as Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Mahabubnagar, .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call for the reords from the respondents and issue an appropriate WRIT, Order or Direction, partiucularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring that the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No. ST/ 27(9) /83 - MB dated 28-4-1984 as conﬁrmed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings NO. PA/19(61)/97- RM (MB) dated 13.11.1997 insofar as inﬂicting the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of there years with cumulative eﬀect while ordering reinstatment is illegal, unjust, contrary to law, in violation of principles of nautral justice, and violative of Articles, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the orders of 3rd respondent -Appellate Authority vide proceedings No.ST/27(9)/83-MB dated 28-04-1984 as conﬁrmed by the 2nd respondent -Reviewing Authority by his proceedings No.PA/19(61)/97-RM(MB) dated 13- 11-1997 by which his annual increment is deferred for a period of three years with eﬀect of his future increments. The petitioner was working as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation and while he was conducting a bus on 07-08-1982 the checking oﬃcials exercised a check and on the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. In the disciplinary proceedings the following charges were framed. “1) For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’. 2) For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to two individual passengers, found travelling without tickets from Kondapur to Kistapur, ex.stages 14 to 15. 3) For having failed to issue tickets to 3 individual passengers, found travelling without tickets from Kondapur to Kistapur, ex.stages 14 to 15 in spite of collecting the requisite fare. 4) For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of two adults and a chargeable child, found travelling without tickets from Kondapur to Gaddameeda Appampalli, ex. Stages 14 to 21, in spite of collecting the requisite fare. 5) For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to two individual passengers, found travelling without tickets from Kondapur to Dhanwada, ex.stages 14 to 18.” The petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges levelled against him and upon which inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer. The inquiry oﬃcer, having collected the requisite evidence, has submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the ﬁndings in the inquiry report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 04-01-1983 to show cause why he cannot be removed from service for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02-02-1983 and ultimately ﬁnal order dated 09-02-1983 was passed removing the petitioner from service. Questioning the same, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the 3rd respondent – appellate authority, but however, the appellate authority, while re-appreciating the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that from the place of boarding the bus i.e. stage No.14 the bus did not even travel one full stage and the check was exercised. From the ﬁndings recorded by the appellate authority, it appears that having come to a conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the revenue of the Corporation, but however, having found that the petitioner did not observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ for not completing the issuance of tickets at stage No.14, revised the punishment of ‘removal from service’ to that of ‘stopping of three annual increments with cumulative eﬀect’. The review preferred by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it is time barred. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that in view of the ﬁndings recorded by the appellate authority the revised punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that based on the inquiry report the disciplinary authority came to a conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved and in fact the punishment imposed on him is ‘removal of service’. I have perused the orders passed by the appellate and review authorities. Even the appellate authority has categorically recorded the ﬁnding that the petitioner has violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ by not issuing tickets to 10 passengers beyond the Stage No.14, which was the ticket issuing point, but having regard to the gravity of the charges and accepting the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner during the check and also the explanation oﬀered by him during the disciplinary proceedings, modiﬁed the punishment from ‘removal of service’ to that of ‘stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative eﬀect’. From the charges framed as extracted above and also in view of the proven misconduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the modiﬁed punishment imposed by the appellate authority cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. It is also to be noticed that as per the Regulations a review has to be ﬁled within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order of the appellate authority. The appellate authority passed its orders vide proceedings No.ST/27(9)/83-MB dated 28-04- 1984. The petitioner ﬁled his review on 08-10-1997 i.e. 13 years after the passing of the orders by the appellate authority. Further, one more aspect that is to be noticed is past service of the petitioner. In para-5 of the counter aﬃdavit, it is stated that the petitioner was earlier censured 9 times, warned twice, his increment was deferred ﬁve times and was removed from service once which shows that he is repeatedly involving in misconduct. As such, he is not entitled to any further relief from this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not ﬁnd any illegality with the modiﬁed punishment awarded by the appellate authority as conﬁrmed by the reviewing authority warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 16, 2008 CVRK