IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6053 of 2008 Between: P. Shankar Reddy, S/o. Durga Reddy, R/o. H.No. 28-1054/1, Housing Board Colony, Vidyanagar, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 APSRTC , Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 APSRTC , Rep. by its Depot Manager, MIryalguda Bus Depot, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in so far as imposing in so far imposing punishment of reduction of two increments stages permanently which shall have cumulative effect and treating the period of removal shall be treated as not on duty to the Petitioner in his proceedings No. PA/19(64)/07-RMN, dt. 13- 11-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to grant increments to the petitioner and treat the removal period ON DUTY. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI (SC for APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in Suryapet Depot of APSRTC. An accident took place on 19.12.2006, when he was driving the bus, on the route from Miryalaguda to Pidugurala. A cyclist at Wadapalli Cross Roads died on account of the accident. Proceedings were initiated and through an order, dated 03.07.2007, the third respondent removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nalgonda, and the same was dismissed on 07.08.2007. Thereupon, the petitioner filed review before the second respondent. Through an order, dated 13.11.2007, the second respondent had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner, but imposed the punishment of reduction of two increments permanently with cumulative effect. The period of removal was also directed to be treated as not on duty. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the punishment of reduction of two increments permanently with cumulative effect as well as the direction as to the manner in which the period of removal shall be treated. Hence, this writ petition. Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent himself was convinced that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, and after taking into account the spotless record of the petitioner, he directed reinstatement. He contends that there is no basis for the punishment imposed by the second respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the second respondent was mostly impressed the past record and there is a clear indication as to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. He contends that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is reasonable and proportionate. He takes an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioner approached the second respondent by way of review against the order of removal, after his appeal was dismissed. The second respondent examined the matter in detail, and was convinced that the order of removal cannot be sustained. After setting aside the same, he imposed the punishment of reduction of two increments permanently with cumulative effect. This punishment would have serious financial implications on the petitioner. In the normal course, the petitioner had to avail the remedy of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) since he cannot raise an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(ii) of the Act. It may be true that the writ petition, at this stage, is not maintainable. However, having regard to the fact that the access for the petitioner to the Labour Court is not direct, and that he has to depend upon an Employees’ Union, this Court is of the view that the matter can be examined, at this stage, with reference to the relevant parameters. From a perusal of the order passed by the second respondent, it is evident that he is convinced that the bus being driven by the petitioner was negotiating an upward gradient and it has almost come to a halt, when the accident took place. Thereby the allegation against the petitioner virtually gets whittled down. In addition to that, the second respondent himself took note of the unblemished record of the petitioner for the past 15 years. Though it is in the realm of the Labour Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act in cases where the facts and circumstances would not leave any doubt, this Court can also examine the proportionality of the punishment. Once the second respondent himself was convinced that there is unblemished record, a serious punishment in the form of permanent reduction of two increments with cumulative effect, would be too disproportionate and harsh. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the punishment imposed against the petitioner shall be reduced to the one of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect. In all other respects, the order passed by the second respondent shall remain as it is. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dated:24.03.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} d