IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11575 of 2004 Between: G.S.N. Murthy, @ Sathi Babu, S/o. Sri Subba Rao, E 376135, R/o. Mentavani Thota, Ward No. 6, Bheemavaram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bust Depot, Bheema Varam, West Godavari District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC Thanuku Division, West Godavari District. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, West Godavari Region, At Eluru. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 14-02-2002 and 16-11-2002 of respondents 1 and 3 respectively insofar as imposition of penalty on the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner is a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”). Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on certain cash and ticket irregularities. After holding enquiry, respondent No.1 passed order dated 14-02-2002, by which the penalty of reduction by two incremental stages for a period of two years having effect on future increments besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments was imposed on the petitioner. On the appeal filed by the petitioner, respondent No.3 modified the said order of punishment by his order dated 16-11-2002 by directing deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with the effect of postponing his future increments. This modified order has been questioned in this writ petition. Earlier this Court allowed the writ petition, at the admission stage, by order dated 13-07-2004. The Corporation filed Writ Appeal No.1466 of 2005 questioning the said order. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter to the Single Judge for fresh consideration of the case. This writ petition is thus coming up for admission and hearing after remand. I have heard Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The following three charges have been framed against the petitioner. 1) For having altered the ticket closing 714 as 71 of Rs.3.75 deno at Stage No.3 while you were conducting Bus No.7746 on the route Bhimavaram- Sriramapuram and reissued the above 3 tickets in the next trip i.e, Sriramapuram-Bhimavaram at Stage No.11 (one ticket) and Stage No.11 (two tickets) in the S.R. bearing No.9355981, while you were conducting the vehicle No.7746 on the route Bhimavaram-Vempa on 06-10-2001 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C.Employees (Conduct) Reg, 1963. 2) For having shown the ticket closing 203 as 202 of Rs.450 deno at Stae No.11 while you were conducting Bus No.7746 on the route BVRM- Jonnapalem and reissued the above 1 ticket in the next trip i.e., Sriramapuram-Bhimavaram at Stage No.9 in the S.R bearing No.7228196, while you were conducting the vehicle No.5467 on the route Bhimavaram-Jonnapalem on 11-09-2001 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) & (xxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Reg, 1963. 3) For having altered the ticket closing 746 as 740 of Rs.2.50 deno at Stage No.16 while you were conducting Bus No.5467 on the route Bhimavaram- Jonnapalem and reissued the same tickets in the next trip i.e., Jonnapalem-Bhimavaram at Stage No.13 (six tickets) in the S.R bearing No.8866259, while you were conducting vehicle No.5467 on the route misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963.” The substance of all the three charges is that the petitioner allegedly indulged in re-issuance of 10 tickets in all and tampered with the Statistical Returns (SRs). In the enquiry report, a copy of which has been placed by the learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, at the hearing, the Enquiry Officer has taken into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Under Charge No.1, the Enquiry Officer held “As seen from the above statement, the Conductor has re-issued three tickets. The statement of the Conductor is not believable. The Conductor clearly admitted that (in) the rush of passengers, he has not observed”. The Enquiry Officer, accordingly, held that Charge No.1 is proved. A similar finding was given on Charge No.2. For Charge No.3, the Enquiry Officer found “The statement of the Conductor is not believable. He (has) shown clearly in the SR (he) has issued 6 tickets of Rs.2.50 deno at Stage No.13 and closed in the SR as 746 at Stage No.16 and he has altered 746 as 740 at Stage No.16 and also strike (sic struck) off the issues. The Conductor has also issued the same tickets at Stage No.16 and accounted at Stage No.13. Hence, it is treated as re-issue.” A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.1 shows that he has not discussed the facts of the case and findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer. However, in the appeal, respondent No.3 passed a somewhat detailed order, wherein he noted the facts of the case and held that after going through the review petition along with the record, he did not find the petitioner’s explanation either convincing or satisfactory. The learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the above two orders on the ground that the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges cannot be sustained. The learned counsel invited my attention to an averment contained in para 5 of the affidavit, wherein the petitioner pleaded that as per Circular No.49/95-OPD-T dated 24-07- 1995, issued by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, the Depot Manager/Traffic Supervisors shall scrutinize alterations in the SR thoroughly and initiate necessary action in case of suspected fraudulent intention within a week. The learned counsel, relying on this plea, contended that while the alleged irregularities in relation to the SR were committed on 20-08-2001, 11-09-2001 and 06-10-2001, the charge sheet was issued only on 30-11-2001 which is beyond the period stipulated in the said Circular. I have carefully considered Circular No.49/95-OPD-T dated 24-07-1995, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner. In para 6 of the said Circular, it is stated as under: “It is now clarified that the extreme penalty of removal from service will be imposed in case of serious cash and ticket irregularities such as re-issue of tickets, sale of fake tickets, sale of unconnected tickets, alternations in SRs, Way Bills “and other cases deserving such action.” Regarding alteration in SRs and Way Bills, to eliminate the benefit of doubt, the Assistant Depot Clerks (ADCs) working on cash/tray receiving duties shall invariably check the Statistical Return (SR/MTD-46), Way Bill (MTD- 5), while receiving cash/tray from Conductors, and obtain on the spot, the attestation of the Conductor concerned for the alterations so detected in the way bill where manual way bills are issued, and in the SRs maintained by the respective Conductors. The Depot Manager/Traffic Supervisors shall scrutinize such alterations thoroughly and initiate necessary action in cases of suspected fraudulent intention within a week as already indicated in Circular No.19/94-OPD-T dated 19-05-1994”. In my considered view, this internal Circular was issued with a view to see that the delay caused in the checking of statistical returns will not give undue benefit in favour of the Conductors. This Circular does not in any manner stipulate any limitation on the Corporation to initiate disciplinary proceedings in appropriate cases where irregularities in the SRs are detected beyond one week. Therefore, this contention is rejected. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of guilt against the petitioner is unsustainable, as already noted above, the Enquiry Officer, having regard to the evidence available before him, has given unequivocal findings on the petitioner’s guilt. The law is well settled that this Court, exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not examine the orders passed by the domestic Tribunals as an appellate Court. Unlike in the criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in a disciplinary proceeding and preponderance of probabilities is enough to hold an employee guilty of misconduct. (State of A.P and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao[1], K. L. Shinde v. State of Mysore[2], Jiwan Mal Kochar v. Union of India[3], Union of India v. B.C.Chaturvedi[4], High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh[5] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S.Patil[6]). Having regard to the material considered by the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be held that his finding of guilt against the petitioner is either perverse or it suffers from a serious error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner was found guilty of serious cash and ticket irregularities, the extreme penalty of removal has not been imposed upon him. Even the lesser punishment imposed by respondent No.1 has been further modified by respondent No.3. Therefore, I am of the view that the modified punishment imposed on the petitioner, in the light of the serious charges held proved against him, cannot be said to be either unwarranted or disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd December, 2008 vrn [1] AIR 1975 SC 2151 [2] AIR 1976 SC 1080 [3] AIR 1983 SC 1102 [4] (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 750 [5] AIR 1997 SC 2286 [6] (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 416