IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14507 of 1999 Between: B. Raju, S/o Chandra Rao, Hindu R/o Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, P.N.B.Station, Vijayawada Depot, Krishna District. 2 Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (Traffic), A.P.S.R.T.C, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more fully in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. Steno 19(162)/98-Dy.CTM(R) dated 4-5-99 of the 2nd respondent in so far as is relates to deduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect as illegal, improper, and consequently direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits in pursuance of his reinstatement. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C. PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14507 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.Steno/19(162)/98-Dy.CTM(R), dated 04.05.1999, of the 2nd respondent insofar as it relates to reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with cumulative effect as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the petitioner, while working as driver in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Vijayawada Bus Depot, was proceeded with departmentally on the allegation of unauthorized absenteeism from duties. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the mater, the 1st respondent- Depot Manager, Vijayawada Bus Depot, being the disciplinary authority, passed an order on 17.06.1998, removing the petitioner from service with effect from 02.06.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent- Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (R), Vijayawada. The 2nd respondent- appellate authority, after detailed consideration of the matter, set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service, subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall be found medically fit for A1 category. 2. He shall pay security deposit afresh. 3. His pay shall be reduced by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 4. On reinstatement into service, the petitioner is posted to Tiruvuru Depot, where he should report within ten days from the date of receipt of the proceedings. Otherwise, the order stands cancelled. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, insofar as imposition of punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was only unauthorized absence from duties for a short period and, in fact, the petitioner, on receipt of a message regarding the death of his mother at Nidadavolu, applied for 3 days casual leave and went to Nidadavolu and, after his return from Nidadavolu, he fell seriously ill and was admitted in University General Hospital at Vijayawada. After he recovered from ill health, he reported to duty along with the medical certificate, but without considering the same, he was informed that the charges framed against him were proved and, ultimately, he was removed from service, by the order of the 1st respondent. The appellate authority, though considered the matter in right perspective and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service, imposed a punishment of reduction of his pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. The appellate authority, while taking a lenient view, ought not to have imposed such punishment, which is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside insofar as imposition of the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the appellate authority and stated that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and, for the charges proved, no other punishment than that of removal from service could be imposed. However, the appellate authority has taken a lenient view and imposed lesser punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, while ordering his reinstatement into service. Thus, no interference is warranted by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The charges are not as simple as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seems to have unauthorizedly absented from duties from 11.03.1997 to 26.06.1997 and he was also alleged to have not available for duties for about 86 days between 01.01.1996 to 31.03.1997 at regular intervals. The appellate authority, observing that the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of removal from service for unauthorized absence for the first time during his entire service of 21 years, has taken a lenient view and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner, while imposing a lesser punishment of reduction of his pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. I am of the opinion that the appellate authority itself has taken a lenient view and imposed a lesser punishment than that of removal from service and, hence, no further interference is warranted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 2nd May, 2008. IBL To 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, P.N.B.Station, Vijayawada Depot, Krishna District. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (Traffic), A.P.S.R.T.C, Vijayawada. 3 Two CD Copies.