IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21952 of 2004 Between: P.Bheemanna S/o.P.Takkanna R/o.Madupurvillage&Post, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bhainse, Adilabad. 2 The Depot Manager APSRTC Adilabad, Adilabad Dist. 3 The Dy.Chief Traffic Manager,APSRTC Adilabad Dist. .....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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the of certiorari under article 226 of the constitution of India by calling for the records pertains to oﬃce order for reduction of pay i.e. impugned proc.No.01/292(1)/97-BNS dt 2-8-97 and an appellate proc.No.Steno/19(S)/98-Dy. CTM:AD2 dt 10-7-1998 issued by the respondents and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to restore the pay scale of the petitioner which was reduced from Rs.2295 to 2185 for a period of two years which shall have its eﬀect on postponing of the petitioner future increments besides treating the suspension period as not on duty and to consequently direct the respondents to treat the suspension period as on duty for all other purposes and to add two increments in the pay scale of the petitioner and to pay the arrears of diﬀerence of pay to the petitioner by ﬁxing the pay scale of the petitioner and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to oﬃce order for reduction of pay i.e., impugned Proceedings No.01/292(1)/97-BNS dated 02-08-1997 and appellate Proceedings No.Steno/19(S)/98-Dy. CTM:AD2 dated 10-07-1998 issued by the respondents and to quash the same, and to consequently, direct the respondents herein to restore the pay scale of the petitioner which was reduced from Rs.2295/- to 2185/- for a period of two years which shall have its eﬀect on postponing of the petitioner future increments besides treating the suspension period as not on duty and to consequently direct the respondents to treat the suspension period as on duty for all other purposes and to add two increments in the pay scale of the petitioner and to pay the arrears of difference of pay by fixing the pay scale of the petitioner. By the impugned proceedings dated 02-08-1997, the Depot Manager imposed the punishment of reducing the petitioner’s pay from Rs.2295/- to 2185/- for a period of two years which shall have its eﬀect on postponing of the petitioner’s future increments besides treating the suspension period as not on duty. These proceedings have been issued by the authorities after conducting due enquiry, in a fatal accident that has taken place on 09-03-1997 while the petitioner was driving the bus near Chityal X-Road on route Nirmal to Bhainsa. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a driver having been appointed in the year 1997. While the petitioner was driving the bus on the route Nirmal to Bhainsa, an accident took place on 09-03-1997 at Chityal X Roads. Therefore, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 07-04-1997 framing the following charge: “For having driven vehicle No.AEZ 4971 in rash and negligent manner in good speed without anticipation and caused accident to an old person named Sri N.Pothanna aged about 60 years at about 12.00 hours on 09-03-1997 near Chityal X road while you are operating the vehicle on route Nirmal to Bhainsa which resulted the old person succumbed to injuries on the way while shifting to hospital, which constitutes misconduct under Regs, 28 (ix) (a), (ix) (b), (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs, 1963”. The petitioner was also placed under suspension, by order dated 07-04-1997, pending enquiry. In response to the charge leveled against him, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 09-04-1997 and an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was submitted on 09-06-1997 and thereafter, he was issued a show cause notice dated 05-07- 1997. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said show cause notice on 26-07-1997 denying the charge leveled against him. By oﬃce order dated 02-08-1997 issued by the Depot Manager, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 03-01-1998 and the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Regulation 8 of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, the respondents have no jurisdiction to reduce the basic pay while imposing the penalty. Regulation 8 reads as under: “8. Penalties: (1) The following penalties may, for good and suﬃcient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon and employee, namely :- (i) censure; (ii) withholding of the privilege of free passes or privilege ticket orders or both for travel on the railway or the bus services of the Corporation, as the case may be, in the case of employees to whom such privilege or privileges are admissible; (iii) ﬁne, in the case of persons for whom such penalty is permissible under these Regulations, vide sub-clause (3); (iv) withholding of increments; (v) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders; (vi) suspension, where a person has already been suspended under regulation 18 pending enquiry into his conduct, to the extent considered necessary by the authority imposing the penalty; (vii) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale, whether in the same class of service or in another class, or to a lower stage in a time- scale; (viii) removal from the service of the Corporation which does not disqualify from future employment; (ix) dismissal from the service of the Corporation which ordinarily disqualiﬁes from future employment. Explanation: The following shall not amount to a penalty with the meaning of the Regulation: ( 1 ) Withholding of increments of an employees for failure to pass a departmental examination or to quality in certain duties or subjects in accordance with the regulations or orders governing the service of post or terms of his appointment. (2) Stoppage of an employee at the eﬃciency bar in the time-scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar. (3) Reversion to a lower service, grade or post of an employee oﬃciating in a higher service, grade or post on the ground that he is considered, after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or post or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct. (4) Reversion to his permanent service, grade or post of an employee appointed on probation to another service, grade or post, during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the regulations or resolution governing probation. (5) Termination of the services-- (a) of an employee appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the regulations or resolution governing probation; or (b) of an employee in accordance with the general conditions of service applicable to permanent or temporary employment, as the case may be; or (c) of an employee engaged under an agreement in accordance with the terms of such agreement; or (d) for reasons of mental or physical incapacity duly certiﬁed by a medical oﬃcer speciﬁed by the Corporation in that behalf. (2) The penalty of with-holding or forfeiture of the privilege of free passes or privilege ticket orders shall be imposed only in connection with an abuse of the particular privilege and shall not be imposed as an alternative to any other penalty, e.g., reduction of pay. It may however be imposed in addition to any other penalty which may be inﬂicted in respect of the same act or omission on the part of an employee. (3) The penalty of ﬁne as such shall not be imposed on an employee in the Class I or Class II services. (4) The penalty of withholding of promotion may be imposed in addition to any of the other penalties that maybe imposed in respect of the same act or omission on the part of an employee. (5) The penalty of recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders, may be imposed in addition to any of the penalty which may be inﬂicted in respect of the same act of negligence or breach of orders.” He also submitted that in connection with the alleged accident that occurred on 09-03-1997, the petitioner was charged with an oﬀence punishable under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.168 of 1997 on the ﬁle of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, and the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner from the charge by judgment dated 15-12-2003. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled for restoration of his position back as he was holding before the suspension. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in District Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Bus Depot v. Labour Court, Hyderabad and another[1], wherein it was held as follows: “……In the result, the deemed suspension of the 2nd respondent on criminal charges against him connected with his duties as an employee must be deemed to have terminated on his acquittal. As held by the lower Court he was entitled to be restored to his original status of an employee and as there is no speciﬁc provision to withhold the payment of the pay and allowances he was entitled to receive the same.”…… On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled stating that the petitioner was drawing Rs.5,520/- with eﬀect from 01-09-2003, but as per the revised pay ﬁxation, he is eligible for drawal of pay of Rs.5,270/- with eﬀect from 08-09-2004, that on veriﬁcation of the personal records, it is noticed that he was awarded the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two years which shall have eﬀect on future increments vide officer order dated 13-08-1996. But the said punishment was not implemented erroneously and hence, the excess drawal arose with eﬀect from 14-08-2000 and the diﬀerence of wages will be recovered in the ensuing salaries. It is also stated that the employee is not entitled for any drawal of two increments as stated by the employee. Except these averments nothing has been stated in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has categorically contended that the authorities have no jurisdiction to reduce the pay scale while imposing the punishment and the same is contrary to the regulation and further he also categorically stated that in connection with the alleged accident, after full trial, the learned Magistrate had rendered the judgment dated 15-12-2003 in C.C.No.168 of 1997 acquitting the petitioner from the charge. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities have not considered the fact of his acquittal from the criminal charge and his entitlement for revocation of the impugned order. For several averments that have been made in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, particularly, with regard to the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case in C.C.No.168 of 1997, the respondents have not adverted to, in the counter ﬁled by them, as to what is the impact of the acquittal from the criminal charge. For these reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. This order does not preclude the authorities from passing the fresh order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law. No costs. __________________ 17th October, 2008 SKM [1] 1979 An.W.R. 234