IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14960 of 1999 Between: A. Anjaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, R/o.Kalladi Post, Makloor Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad. 3 The Dy.Chief traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in imposing the punishment of reducing the petitioner's pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have permanent effect on his future increments vide Proc.No.PA/62(35)/92-NZB, dt.24-5-1993 and confirming the same by the 3rd and 2nd Respondent vide their respective orders dt.2-9-96 and 22-12-98 as unjust, arbitrary in violation of Articles-14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent's Corporation to restore his increments treating the period of suspension on duty with wages along with its consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play and grant such other order or orders as may deem be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14960 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order, dated 24.05.1993, passed by the 4th respondent – Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad Bus Depot, imposing the punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, as confirmed by respondents 2 and 3, vide orders dated 02.09.1996 and 22.12.1998 respectively, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears, the petitioner, who was working as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) at Nizamabad Bus Depot, while conducting a bus on the route Nizambad to Walgote, on 16.12.1992, a check was exercised by the officials at stage No.10/11, wherein certain cash and ticket irregularities said to have been found. Thereupon, the petitioner was issued with a memo and, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he was suspended from service and was issued with a charge sheet, dated 2.11.1997, enumerating the following charges: “Charge 1: For having collected Rs.20/- from a batch of two adults and one chargeable child towards their requisite fare at the boarding point itself and issued lower denomination tickets bearing Nos.120/875367 & 368 of Rs.3.00 denomination and 003/700871 & 872 of Rs.0.50 ps. amounting to Rs.7.00 to two adults instead of Rs.13.50 ps. (Rs.6.75 each) and issued correct denomination ticket bearing No.218/084542 of Rs.3.75 ps. to a chargeable child who were traveling from Nizamabad to Walgote ex-stages 1 to 11 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) & (x) & (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1963. Charge 2: For having closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations upto stage No.10 without issuing proper tickets to the above said passengers while you were performing your duty on 16.10.1992, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxv) & (xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges, the petitioner was found guilty of the same and, accordingly, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 24.05.1993, imposed a punishment of reduction of his pay by two incremental stages i.e. from Rs.1245 to 1175, which shall have effect on the future increments, besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’. The appeal stated to have been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the said punishment, was rejected by the appellate authority; while the review petition was rejected by the reviewing authority on the ground of laches. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the disciplinary authority has not properly looked into the evidence placed before it and, without there being any basis, the petitioner was held guilty of the charges and was imposed with the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’, which is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The appellate authority also has not considered the matter in proper perspective and erroneously confirmed the said punishment. Therefore, the order of the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and, in fact, the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view and imposed a lesser punishment. The appellate authority, taking note of the same, refused to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Thus, no interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The sum and substance of the charges framed against the petitioner is that he issued lower denomination tickets to a set of two adult passengers and a chargeable child and closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations, without issuing proper tickets to the said passengers. On being found the petitioner guilty of the charges, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’. The appellate authority, opining that the said punishment was in proportion to the charges proved, refused to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal. Ofcourse, the review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of laches. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the order of the disciplinary authority insofar as imposition of punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with cumulative effect cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. However, treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ is disproportionate to that of the charges proved and the same will affect the continuity of service and, consequently, the seniority, promotion and retirement benefits will be effected. For the above reasons, the impugned order, dated 24.05.1993, of the 4th respondent- disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, is modified to the following effect:- “The pay of the petitioner shall be reduced by two incremental stages i.e. from Rs.1245 to 1175 with cumulative effect and the period of suspension shall be treated as ‘on duty’ for the purpose of seniority, promotion and retirement benefits. However, the petitioner is not entitled for full salary for the said period of suspension.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 2nd May, 2008. IBL To 1 The Managing Director, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad. 3 The Dy.Chief traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Nizamabad.