IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8560 of 2000 Between: P.V.Ramana (Staff No. 409748) S/o. Krishnamurthy. APSRTC., Pulivendula Depot, Cuddapah. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayachoty, Cuddapah. 2 The M.D., APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...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 a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to the proceedings No. P2/114/ (17)/97-RCTY, dated 17/04/2000 issued by the 1st respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner, a conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, attached to Pulivendula Depot in Cuddapah District, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 17-04-2000, by which an amount of Rs.7208/- is ordered to be recovered from his salary in 10 equal monthly instalments, towards the value of consignment, i.e. ‘V’ belts, which were lost when he was conducting bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-9546. 2. The petitioner was on duty as conductor on the bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-9546, on 06-07-1997, which was plying from Hyderabad to Rayachoty. In the said bus, there were 8 parcels of M/s. ANL Parcel Service, Hyderabad which were to be delivered at its Cuddapah branch. But, however, it appears that only 7 parcels were delivered as against 8 parcels at the destined place. With reference to missing of one parcel, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing a charge. The petitioner submitted explanation denying the said charge. In view of denial of the charge by the petitioner, a regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted report dated 10-03-1999 recording a finding that the petitioner is responsible for missing of one parcel. Based on the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, impugned order was issued to recover an amount of Rs. 7208/- from the salary of the petitioner in 10 equal monthly instalments, towards the value of one parcel, i.e. ‘V’ belts, which was lost. 3. This court, initially, by order dated 09-05-2000, passed interim order staying the operation of the impugned order, but, however, vacated the same, subsequently, by order dated 22-09-2000. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bus which the petitioner was conducting, i.e. the bus bearing No. AP-9-Z-9546, met with an accident, during transit, at Kothakota at about 10.30 p.m., and the petitioner, who was injured and fell unconscious, was admitted in General Hospital, Kurnool, and therefore, the petitioner ought not to have been held responsible for the missing of the subject parcel. It is also submitted that as the petitioner suffered injuries and became unconscious, in absence of any evidence recorded in the proceedings, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer have an adverse effect on the case of the petitioner. 5. The Law Officer of the APRSTC has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, while denying the allegation of the petitioner that he became unconscious on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, it is stated that the petitioner suffered only minor injuries and he was treated in General Hospital, Kurnool. It is further stated that as the petitioner was conducting the bus, it was his duty to deliver the 8 parcels, which were loaded in Hyderabad, at the destination point, i.e. ANL Parcel Service, Cuddapah. It is stated that the impugned order, to recover the amount which is equivalent to the value of the consignment lost, is passed based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings. 6. I have perused a copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner with regard to the charge framed against him. In the said explanation, the petitioner has merely stated that he was treated as an outpatient, vide O.P.No.21904. The allegation of the petitioner that he suffered critical injuries and as a result fell unconscious and the fact that he was admitted as an outpatient for the said injuries does not cohere. In any event, the allegation of the petitioner that he became unconscious on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident is denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit and no other material is also placed before this court by the petitioner to show that he became unconscious on account of the injuries suffered by him nor there is reply affidavit controverting the said averment of the respondents. It is to be noted that, when the petitioner was entrusted with the consignment of 8 parcels, which were to be delivered at ANL Parcel Service, Cuddapah, it was his duty to take care of the said parcels and deliver them, as they are, at the destined place, which he failed to do. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. March 17, 2009 MRR