IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22793 of 2008 Between: R. Pullaiah ..... Petitioner AND APSRTC, rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Narsimha Goud Counsel for the respondents: Sri V. Padmanabha Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22793 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed originally for quashing order dated 25.06.2008. During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.2 passed order dated 27.10.2008, which is questioned by way of an amendment to this writ petition. Today, the amendment application has been ordered. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Depot Clerk and was kept in-charge of oil. Later, he was transferred as Depot Clerk (Earning) on 01.01.2005. He retired from service on 30.06.2008. A few days before his retirement, respondent No.2 issued charge sheet dated 03.06.2008 alleging that four ticket blocks worth Rs.5,262/- belonging to Sri Gangadhar, Conductor of Bheemgal Depot were found missing and that the petitioner failed to keep the ticket blocks in the safe custody. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Respondent No.2 thereupon issued a show cause notice proposing to recover a sum of Rs.5,262/- from the petitioner’s salary settlement amounts and passed final order dated 25.06.2008 to that effect. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. When this writ petition was pending, the petitioner received notice dated 17.10.2008 on 21.10.2008 calling upon him to show cause why a sum of Rs.1,65,148/- shall not be recovered from his settlement amounts. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. However, by order dated 27.10.2008, respondent No.2 directed recovery of the said sum from the petitioner’s retirement benefits. This order is again questioned by way of an amendment to this writ petition. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. A perusal of the orders passed by respondent No.2 shows that he did not hold any enquiry to impose the penalty of recovery of the alleged loss caused by the petitioner. Regulation 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 enumerates various misconducts. Sub-regulation ix (a) of the said regulations deals with “gross negligence resulting in or likely to result in serious loss to the Corporation or inconvenience to the public or both”. Regulation VIII (v) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short, ‘1967 Regulations’) deals with “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 Regulation 12(2) of the 1967 Regulations, an enquiry is envisaged only in cases where penalties specified in sub-clauses (vii), (viii) and (ix) of clause (1) of Regulation VIII are proposed to be imposed. In the instant case, though, as a result of the 1967 Regulations of the Corporation, recovery of loss from an employee can be considered as a minor penalty, having regard to the deleterious effect, recovery of a huge sum will be having on a petty employee like the petitioner, it will be wholly unjust to pass an order by following the summary procedure of considering the explanation of the employee without holding proper enquiry. Therefore, I am of the view that having regard to the heavy quantum of amount involved, the respondent shall hold enquiry by treating the alleged act of the petitioner as a major misconduct and give him an opportunity of participating in the enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me the order of this Court in CH.P. Reddy v. APSRTC[1] wherein this Court directed to recover the printing and stationary charges of the missing tickets instead of recovery of the face value of the tickets. This judgment assumes relevance in this case if the petitioner is found responsible for the missing of the ticket blocks. But, in the event of the petitioner being able to prove in the enquiry that he is not liable for missing of the tickets at all, he will not be liable to pay even the printing and stationary charges. A perusal of both the orders impugned in this writ petition shows that respondent No.2 failed to give any reason whatsoever in rejecting the explanation of the petitioner. This shows the perfunctory approach of respondent No.2 in fastening liability on the petitioner in a lighthearted manner. De hors the ground of not holding enquiry, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, as they are not supported by any reasons. For the abovementioned reasons both orders dated 25.06.2008 and 27.10.2008 are quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to hold a regular enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the light of the enquiry report and the order of this Court in CH. P. Reddy (supra). He shall complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.29685 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.04.2009 ES [1] 2000 (5) ALD 93