HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25770 of 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by a Conductor working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and attached to Midhani Depot, challenging the order dated 31.01.2000, passed by the 1st respondent/Depot Manager, and the further order, dated 27.10.2000, passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby, the pay of the petitioner was reduced by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, as a measure of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 2. The facts of the case are that on 12.10.1999, while the petitioner was conducting the bus bearing No.5061 on route No.203N from Nalgonda X Roads to Nadargul, the checking officials have inspected the bus at stage No.7 and noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Based on the same, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a charge sheet was issued to him by framing the following two charges : “1. For having failed to issue tickets to two passengers who were found travelling without tickets from Nadargul to Lenin Nagar ex-stages 6 to 8/9 despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.5.00 from them, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to complete the ticket issues within one fare stage, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. The petitioner has filed his explanation, denying the abovesaid charges. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has ordered for an inquiry into the allegations levelled against him, by appointing an inquiry officer. After completion of inquiry, the inquiry officer has submitted his report, by recording a finding that both the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the said inquiry report, the order dated 31.01.2000 was passed, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority/Divisional Manager, but the same was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Heard Sri A.Bichaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Corporation, and also perused the impugned orders passed by both the disciplinary and appellate authorities. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the inquiry officer has recorded his findings contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that though the two lady passengers, who were found without tickets, have stated that they have paid Rs.10/- to the petitioner two days prior to the date of inspecton, but did not take back the balance amount of Rs.5/- from him, and therefore, they were travelling in the bus without paying any amount towards fare, but the checking officials have forced the said two passengers to state as if they had paid the amount on the same day, but were not issued tickets by the petitioner. The inquiry officer has failed to consider the said aspect and recorded the findings against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in any event, the respondents ought not to have passed the final orders without furnishing the inquiry report to the petitioner at the time of issuing second show cause notice. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation that in this case, the inquiry officer, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has arrived at the conclusion to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. It is further submitted that as the said findings of fact were also approved by the appellate authority, there is no ground for the petitioner to claim any relief in this writ petition. 7. In this case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner mainly on the ground that when a check was exercised at stage No.7 while the petitioner was conducting the bus on 12.10.1999, it was found that he did not issue tickets to two lady passengers, despite collecting the requisite fare from them. Though the petitioner has denied receiving of any amount from the said two lady passengers, but however, both the disciplinary and appellate authorities have arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has not approached those two passengers for collecting fare from them, which creates a doubt that he might have collected the fare from them on 10.10.1999 itself. 8. From the above findings recorded in the inquiry proceedings, it is to be noted that the check was exercised when the petitioner was conducting the bus on 12.10.1999, whereas the statements of the two lady passengers were to the effect that they had paid Rs.10/- to the petitioner on 10.10.1999 towards the fare of Rs.5/-, but the petitioner did not return the balance amount of Rs.5/-, and therefore, they were travelling on 12.10.1999 without paying any amount towards their fare. But however, in the absence of any material to that effect, merely assuming the statements of those two lady passengers to be correct, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have arrived at conclusions against the petitioner on the said charges. Even in the counter affidavit, it was not disputed by the respondent/Corporation that the petitioner was not furnished with the inquiry report before imposing the punishment. 9. Although in normal course, the matter is to be remitted back for fresh consideration, but taking into account the fact that the impugned orders were passed as early as in 2000 and this writ petition is pending before this Court for about nine long years, to put a quietus to the litigation, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is modified. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the disciplinary authority to the extent of reduction of pay by two incremental stages, is confirmed, but it shall be treated as without cumulative effect. The order to the extent of treating the period of suspension as not on duty, is also confirmed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner as per the directions referred to above, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th February 2009. Va/ajr