IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23739 of 2008 Between: S.K. Murthy, S/o. Yadagiri, APSRTC, Midhani Bus Depot, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Midhani bus Depot, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, A.P., .....RESPONDENT 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in imposing the punishment of deferment of petitiners annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension as not on duty for all purposes is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the procedure by setting aside final order No.02/95(70)/2006-MDN, dt. 17-05-2007 of the respondent herein consequently direct the respondent to allow the deferred increment of the petitioner with all consequential benefits by treating the suspension period as on duty for all purpose and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 23739 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The petitioner was working as a Conductor in Midhani Bus Depot of APSRTC Depot. While discharging the duties on the bus bearing No. 1007 the bus was checked at stage No.4 Champapet and subsequently a charge Memo was issued to him alleging that he deviated the prescribed route. The driver of the bus namely V.G.Reddy was also charge sheeted for the self same allegation. A final order came to be passed on 17-5-2007 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment with cumulative effect and directed that the period of suspension would be treated as not on duty for all purpose. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 17276 of 2008 (V.G Reddy Vs. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Midhani Bus Depot, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad). In the said writ petition it has been observed as follows: “ It is a matter of common knowledge that even on long routes, particularly, between Hyderabad and Vijayawada deviations to the extent of several kilometers, are made whenever traffic jams occur due to accidents etc. The respondent proceeded on hyper-technicalities and imposed a major punishment, without issuing a show cause notice, under clause (13) of Regulation12 of APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. It was not even suggested that either any inconvenience was caused to the traveling public, or any monetary loss was caused to the Corporation”. 4. The above writ petition is filed by the driver of the vehicle and the present writ petition is filed by the conductor of the self same vehicle. The decision in W.P.No.17276 of 2008 squarely applies to the case. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 22nd January, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 23739 OF 2008 22nd January, 2009.