IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2235 of 2004 Between: M.Laxmareddy, s/o Sattaiah, r/o Yellareddypet, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC rep., by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jagtiyal Depot, Karimnagar District. 3 The Regional Manager, ASPRTC, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, or order, or directions, more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the office order-cum-Show Cause Notice No.02/95(137)/97 JGTL dated 17-01-1998 of the 2nd respondent and proceedings no.PA/19(108)/02-RM-KRMR dated 12- 06-2003 passed by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and set aside the same with all consequential benefits including arrears Counsel for the Petitioner:T.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2235 OF 2004 O R D E R This writ petition is filed challenging the Office Order-cum-Show Cause Notice No.02/95(137)/97 JGTL dated 17.01.1998 passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jagtial Depot, Karimnagar District and the order dated 12.06.2003 passed by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Region, confirming the same. The petitioner is a Conductor in the service of the APSRTC. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by him while he was conducting Bus No.AP 9Z 6632 on 10/11.09.1997 on the route Hyderabad to Jagtial. Charge sheet dated 26.09.1997 was issued by the respondent Corporation framing two charges with regard to the alleged irregularities and he submitted his explanation to the same on 01.10.1997. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to look into the matter and he submitted his report dated 20.12.1997 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thereupon, the impugned Office Order-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 17.01.1998 was issued by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jagtial Depot. The said order makes for interesting reading. The Depot Manager, after referring to the issuance of the charge sheet, the petitioner’s explanation to the same and the enquiry report, stated that after going through the report of the Enquiry Officer he had come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved for which the penalty of ‘deferment of his annual increment for a period of two years which shall have effect on his future increments’ was deemed a fit and proper punishment besides treating his suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of wages. Stating so, the Depot Manager ordered that the annual increment which next fell due be deferred for a period of two years which would have effect on his future increments. Surprisingly, having passed such an order, the Depot Manager thought it fit to call upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the suspension period should not be treated as not on duty. The impugned order clearly reflects that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and he was not even called upon to submit his explanation before the visitation of the punishment imposed, which admittedly, is a major punishment. The Regional Manager, Karimnagar, merely dealt with the matter on merits and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and did not advert to these crucial aspects, while dismissing the petitioner’s review petition. The grievance of the petitioner, as culled out from his affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, is that he was not furnished a copy of the enquiry report and was denied an opportunity of hearing before the imposition of the punishment under the impugned order dated 17.01.1998. Sri T.Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above contentions, placed before me a copy of the order dated 13.04.2007 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7604 of 2007. In an identical fact situation, where the writ petitioner/Conductor had not been furnished a copy of enquiry report and was denied an opportunity of hearing before the imposition of the punishment of deferment of his annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, the learned single Judge, relying upon an earlier judgment of this Court dated 05.09.2005 in W.P.No.18299 of 2005, modified the punishment of stoppage of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The learned Judge however held that the petitioner therein would not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out of the said order, but would only be entitled to fixation of pay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order in W.P.No.7604 of 2007 has become final and that it was not carried in appeal. In that view of the matter, as the present case is in pari materia with that in W.P.No.7604 of 2007 and the punishment imposed is also identical; and as the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity owing to the non-furnishing of the enquiry report and denial of hearing before the imposition of the punishment, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case requiring this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to modify the punishment. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is accordingly modified from that of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with effect on future increments to that of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect, which shall not have any effect on his future increments. The petitioner, however, will not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out of this order, but would only be entitled to fixation of his pay. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 13rd AUGUST, 2009 PGS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2235 OF 2004 13TH AUGUST, 2009