IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 10795 of 2009 Between: K. Prasad Rao S/o. Kanaka Ramanji R/o. D.No.25-209, Durganagar, Nandigama, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Krishna Region, Vijayawada, Krishna District, rep. by its Regional Manager. 2 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Jaggaiahpet Depot, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna 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, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the proceedings No.01/612(01)/2008-JPT, dated 7.1.2009 imposing the punishment of recovery of Rs.15790/- towards value of loss of tickets, Rs.200/- towards cost of hand tray, and postponing the increments for six month without cumulative effect, besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for all purposes; (ii) the action of the respondent is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to circular instructions issued by the Corporation; and consequently release all the increments including the arrears of salary for pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court at the stage of admission made the following O R D E R: Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and with the consent of the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Conductor of the state-owned Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation questioning the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent – Depot Manager, imposing the punishment of withholding one increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and also simultaneously imposing the punishment of recovering an amount of Rs. 15,790/- towards the value of the tickets lost and Rs.200/- towards the cost of the hand tray, which was also lost. The facts, which are not in dispute, are these: The writ petitioner was working as a Conductor attached to Jaggaiahpet Depot in Krishna District at the relevant point of time. He conducted a bus between Jaggaiahpet and Vijayawada and before another trip back to Jaggaiahpet is undertaken, according to the petitioner, he had gone to report to the counter clerk and then, went to the bathroom for refreshing himself. By the time he came back, he found that the ticket tray, which is the property of the APSRTC containing the tickets of various denominations was found missing from the box. In spite of the search carried out, it had not produced the desired result. A police complaint was lodged, but however, the tray and the tickets have not been traced out. Alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has pointed out that in spite of his taking adequate care, the tray containing the tickets has been lost out and that there was no specific act of negligence on his part. He has also pleaded that in cases of this nature, the Operation Manual prepared by the APSRTC for guidance of all, in its Instruction No.45, has made it clear that the face value of the tickets lost is not liable to be recovered from the person responsible for such a loss, but however, cost of the stationery including its printing charges are liable to be recovered apart from taking other suitable disciplinary action against him. In the instant case, the petitioner is not making a grievance out of the punishment of withholding of the increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months and he is also not making an issue out of the order proposing to recover a sum of Rs.200/- being the cost of the tray. However, what the writ petitioner has been objecting to is that the Depot Manager, the disciplinary authority, has, through the impugned order, proposed to recover the face value of the tickets lost out in a sum of Rs.15,790/-, whereas as per Instruction No. 45 of the Operation Manual of the APSRTC, it is the stationery costs alone that are liable to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Ch. P. Reddy v. APSRTC, Hyderabad[1], wherein after considering the entire scheme of the disciplinary proceedings as well as the Operation Manual, the learned Judge of this Court has held that the loss, which was incurred by the APSRTC in getting printed and staking, and the stationery costs involved alone are liable to be recovered. In view of this judgment, prima facie, the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority proposing to recover a sum of Rs.15,790/- is not justifiable or tenable, but however, the matter has got to be examined by the Corporation only with regard to the actual amount that is liable to be recovered in a case of this nature towards stationery and printing charges. Even for that purpose, the matter has got to be remanded. Strikingly, the writ petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal, in terms of Regulation 22 of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations. These Regulations also provide an opportunity, even for the disciplinary authority to re-examine the matter in case the material could warrant such an exercise. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the writ petitioner to avail such remedy by way of preferring an appeal of the order passed by the Depot Manager within the next 15 days from today. If such an appeal is preferred, the disciplinary authority will take into account and consideration the instructions contained in the Operation Manual of the APSRTC as well as the ratio laid down by this Court in Ch.P. Reddy’s case. The appeal may be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same. However, it is already noticed that the APS RTC has recovered a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from the salary of the writ petitioner from the month of February 2009 onwards. It is only, therefore, appropriate that till such time the appellate authority decides the entire question, no further recovery shall be affected from the salary of the writ petitioner. With this, Writ Petition No. 10795 of 2009 stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 3rd June 2009 Note: Issue CC in one week. ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] 2000(5) ALD 93