IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9395 of 2008 Between: R.Suresh Kumar S/o.Late Rathan Singh E.No.201047, Ranigunj-II Depot, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kushaiguda Depot. 2 The Divisional Manager, Secunderabad Division, RAthifile, Secunderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket. ...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 declaring the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 vide no PA/19(67)/2001-DVM:SD, dated 12.11.2001 in so far as imposing punishment of reducing the petitioner's pay by 2 incremental stages for period of 2 years which has permanently effect on the petitioner's future increments, treating the intervening period from the date of removal till the petitioner reported at the depot after posting as NOT ON DUTY for all purposes, and directing the petitioner to pay fresh security deposit amount, which was confirmed by the order of the Respondent no3 vide his order dated 10.3.2003 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to restore Petitioner's increments from the due date i.e., 12.11.2001 treating the period from the date of removal till petitioner report at the depot after posting AS ON DUTY OR LEAVE DUE, releasing all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.THIRUPATHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9395 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in Ranigunj depot of APSRTC. On 17.11.2000, he was driving the service in the city. A charge sheet, dated 16.12.2000, was issued to the petitioner, alleging that he assaulted a passenger at route No.3, and used filthy language. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report, holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. The 1st respondent passed an order, dated 20.7.2001, directing the removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the order of removal, directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service, but imposing the punishment of reduction of pay, by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, and further directing that the period from the date of removal, till the date of reporting duty, shall be treated as not on duty, for all purposes. Review filed by the petitioner, before the 3rd respondent, was rejected, vide proceedings dated 10.3.2003. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident has taken place, when the petitioner tried to prevent a male passenger from boarding the bus from front entrance, which was exclusively meant for lady passengers. He contends that the 2nd respondent was himself satisfied that the order of removal passed against the petitioner, is untenable, but had passed an order, which had effect of imposing double punishment. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the 2nd respondent has taken a lenient view of the matter, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner, duly imposing the appropriate punishment. The charge against the petitioner was that he assaulted a passenger, on the route. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that he had to intervene, when a male passenger has not only entered the bus from the front entrance, but also started misbehaving with the lady passengers. It is no doubt true that the petitioner could have maintained some restraint and must have reported the matter to the police, but it cannot be said that his intervention was totally uncalled for. The punishment imposed by the 1st respondent was totally disproportionate to such an extent that the Divisional Manager himself had chosen to set aside the same. The alternative punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent, while setting aside the order of removal, would have the effect of reducing the emoluments of the petitioner, substantially, for the rest of his service. Further, stoppage of two annual increments, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, had an element of duplication of the punishment, and it would have serious impact on the salary of the petitioner. Apart from that, denial of the continuity of service, from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, deprived the petitioner of the benefit of his previous service. Though the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of back wages for that period, it is not appropriate to deny him the past service. It is doubtful as to whether the petitioner can avail the remedy in the Labour Court, as to the grievance mentioned above. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the punishment imposed against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, shall be modified to the one of stoppage of annual increment, for a period of two years, without cumulative effect, and that the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, shall be treated as on leave, available to the credit of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 28th April 2008 PAN