THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.8844 OF 2008 DATED 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN M.Sivasankar … Petitioner And The Executive Director (K&N) APSRTC, Kadapa. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.8844 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, a former Depot Manager in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), challenges the proceedings dated 29.02.2008 passed by the Executive Director of the APSRTC directing reduction of his pay by two incremental stages permanently. By order dated 22.04.2008 passed at the time of admission of this writ petition, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 29.02.2008 which was thereafter made absolute on 29.04.2010. The petitioner entered the service of the APSRTC as a Traffic Inspector Grade-II in the year 1977 and was thereafter promoted upto the post of Depot Manager. He retired from service on 29.02.2008. While he was working as a Depot Manager at Kadiri Depot he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 22.01.2008. The charge against the petitioner was: “For having taken disproportionate action in the case bearing No.O2/95(120)07-KDR, O2/95(124)07.KDR, O2/95(127)07.KDR and O2/95(128)07.KDR which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.” An enquiry was initiated to look into the matter. The petitioner complains that he was denied full and proper opportunity in the said enquiry. He claimed that while he was handing over charge on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2008, the impugned proceedings dated 29.02.2008 were served upon him. Hence, the writ petition. In its counter, the APSRTC alleged that the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry deliberately in spite of being on duty on the relevant dates. It is further stated that on the basis of the material available on record the penalty was imposed and that the same does not suffer from any illegality. As pointed out by this Court at the time of granting the interim order, the charge against the petitioner is trivial, to say the least. It is the case of the APSRTC that the petitioner, in the capacity of a disciplinary authority, failed to take action in four cases in proportion to the gravity of the offence committed by the Conductors. Needless to state, as a disciplinary authority, the petitioner was exercising some amount of discretion and unless such discretion was fettered by any norms or parameters, it is not open to the APSRTC to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for any simple lapses on his part in exercise of such discretion. Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, on instructions, stated that action was initiated on the ground that the petitioner had exercised discretion for extraneous considerations. However, no such allegation finds mention in the charge levelled against the petitioner. It is therefore not open to the APSRTC to now supplement the charge levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet. As matters stand, the impugned proceedings reflect that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, though it is the case of the APSRTC that he himself was responsible for the same having intentionally stayed away. Considering the nature of the charge levelled against the petitioner and the fact that he did not have an opportunity of putting forth his case, be it for whatever reason, I am of the considered view that the punishment imposed upon him reducing his basic pay by two incremental stages permanently is shockingly disproportionate. Thus, for reasons more than one, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 29.02.2008. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. VGSR/PGS