THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15686 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent in No.PA/18(16)/2005-RM(K) dated 21.2.2005 insofar as imposing penalty of postponement of one increment without cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period from 20.3.2002 to 1.9.2003 as ‘not on duty’ as arbitrary and illegal and further declare the proceedings No.01/785(6)/103-GVPT-II dated 13.10.2003 as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner while conducting the Bus on 26.2.2002 on the route K.R. Market to Vijayawada, the vehicle was stopped near I Town Police Station, Vijayawada for boarding the passengers. One lady passenger by name Chinna Tulasamma, resident of K.Kandrika, who is a milk vendor has boarded the Bus, kept one milk vessel in the bus and went outside with the permission of the driver. The driver also informed the same to the petitioner and afterwards, she boarded the vehicle and when the petitioner questioned her about the late, she informed that she thought that some other conductor is performing duty and if the petitioner were the duty conductor, she might have not left the bus. There was some altercation and exchange of words. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner stating that he misbehaved with the lady passenger. After conducting a detailed enquiry, show cause notice of removal was issued to the petitioner. Questioning the same, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6550 of 2003 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 13.4.2003 while disposing of the writ petition, directed the authorities to impose any other punishment other than removal from service since the charges were trivial in nature. Aggrieved thereby, management carried the matter in appeal being W.A.No.1255 of2003 and the same was dismissed leaving liberty to the authorities to pass appropriate orders with respect to imposition of punishment other than removal from service. Thereafter, disciplinary authority passed order dated 13.10.2002 imposing punishment reducing the pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages for a period of two years with immediate effect, which shall have the effect of postponing the future increments, besides treating the period of suspension from 20.3.2002 to 1.9.2003 as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave, gratuity and increments. Questioning the same, petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority rejected the said appeal. Further aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed revision before the revisional authority and the revisional authority, on considering the entire material on record, vide his order dated 22.1.2005, modified the punishment deferring two increments with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year, which shall not have any effect on future increments. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is misconceived. At the stage of show cause notice, petitioner filed Writ Petition and this Court observed that this is not a case for removal and any other punishment could be imposed. Aggrieved thereby, management filed Writ Appeal and in the Writ Appeal, it was observed that the management is at liberty to pass any other order, except removal from service. Under those circumstances, the disciplinary authority passed order imposing the petitioner with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected and further aggrieved thereby, he preferred revision and in the revision, the revisional authority, taking lenient view of the matter, modified the order to that of stoppage of one increment. I am of the considered opinion that such an order cannot be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since the petitioner has already suffered with punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, the order to the effect treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the period of suspension as a regular service, however, petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits on that ground. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 2.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15686 of 2005 2.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15686 of 2005 Date: 2nd February, 2011 Between: K.L.Sudhakar .. Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Regional Manager, Krishna Region, Vijayawada and others. .. Respondents