THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009. Writ Petition No. 2445 of 2001. Between: M.Narsaiah ……Petitioner vs. 1.A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad And 3 others. ………….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No. 2445 of 2001. ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a Conductor of the APSRTC questioning the validity of the show cause notice issued to him on 26.10.1998 proposing to recover a sum of Rs. 6,547.40 paisa representing the value of the tickets lost from out of his custody. The facts that are relevant are that the petitioner was performing duty on 31.10.1992 on the route Godavarikhani- Narsampet and while so, he realised that some tickets were lost from his ticket tray and he immediately reported the matter to the depot authorities. The blocks of the tickets, which were lost, were traced out and they were also handed over to the depot authorities. Still two tickets of Rs. 50/- face value/denomination could not be traced out. The value of these tickets being only Rs. 100/- was immediately recovered from the salary of the writ petitioner payable in the month of May 1998. Subsequent to this incident, the writ petitioner was also promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk and he was posted at Manthani depot. While he was working at Manthani, a show cause notice was served on 10.6.2000 proposing to recover a sum of Rs. 6,547.40 paisa from him. An amount of Rs. 500/- was also recovered from his salary bill payable for the month of October 2000. At that stage, he approached this Court. He has pointed out that the blocks of tickets which were lost have in fact been handed over by a good natured person soon after they were lost and they were handed over to the point Controller at Godavarikhani and the point Controller, Godavarikhanin in turn handed over the tickets to the writ petitioner who re-deposited them with the Assistant Depot Clerk, Godavarikhani. It is contended that as per Clause 36 of the Operation Manual framed by the APSRTC, if tickets are lost by the Conductors, the face value of the tickets is not liable to be recovered from the Conductors but however the cost of stationery and printing charged are only liable to be recovered from such employees of the Corporation. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner Sri.G.Vidyasagar contends that in so far as two tickets of Rs. 50/- denomination are concerned, a sum of Rs. 100/- being their face value was already recovered from the salary of the writ petitioner payable for the month of May, 1998. Since the quantum of recovery was only Rs. 100/-, the petitioner did not raise serious dispute with regard to the same. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 500/- was also recovered from his salary payable for the month of October, 2000. As the show notice was issued proposing to recover a sum of Rs. 6,540/-, the present writ petition has been instituted pointing out that the proposed action is not only contrary to Clause 36 of the Operation Manual issued by the APSRTC but also contrary to the Regulation 8 of the CCCA Regulations. It is worthy to note that the issue of pecuniary loss sustained by the Corporation on account of their employees’ negligence has come up for consideration before this Court in Ch.P.Reddy vs. APSRTC [2000 (5) ALT 7]. In the above case, Justice Bilal Nazki (as he then was) concluded the issue by holding that the Corporation has not suffered any loss of the amount which the tickets could fetch if they were sold to the passengers travelling in the bus but the Corporation has sustained loss which was incurred by it in printing and stacking them. Therefore, it is improper to recover from the employee the face value of the tickets so lost. On an earlier occasion, I subscribed to the same view and held that the Conductor who loses tickets from out of his tray, he is only liable to be penalized by recovering the costs incurred by the APSRTC towards stationery and printing charges and other incidental charges including stacking and stapling them. Apart from recovering this money, the Corporation is not justified in seeking to recover the face value of the tickets in as much as such tickets are not sold to the passengers travelling in the bus and therefore they are useless. This apart, the Corporation is also entitled to impose a minor punishment at the first instance against such erring employees so as to instil a greater sense of discipline and accountability. In the instant case, the respondent Corporation has already recovered a sum of Rs. 100/- being the face value of the two tickets of Rs. 50/- denomination lost by the writ petitioner in the month of May, 1998 itself. Subsequently, from the salary payable for the month of October 2000, they also recovered a sum of Rs. 500/-. Therefore, the proposed action of the respondent Corporation to recover the face value of the entire tickets lost by him is unjust and untenable. The Corporation is therefore directed to ascertain the cost incurred by it in getting such number of tickets, as are lost, printed, staked and stapled. They may also impose by way of a penalty a sum of Rs. 500/-, which was already recovered from the salary bill of the month of October 2000 from the writ petitioner. Therefore, the Corporation would now pass appropriate orders within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the writ petitioner the cost of getting the tickets printed, stacked and stapled and also recovering a sum of Rs. 500/- as a measure of penalty from him. The Corporation would do well to remember that a sum of Rs. 100/- and Rs.500/- was already recovered from the salary of the writ petitioner payable for the months of May 1998 and October 2000 respectively. Therefore, if there is any additional sum required to be recovered, the same may be informed to the writ petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 17.11.2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No. 2445 of 2001. Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009