IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.12394 OF 2011 Date:27.04.2011 Between:- P.Gurunatha Reddy .. Petitioner And APSRTC., Chittoor Region, rep.by its Regional Manager, Tirupathi and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to Proceedings No.01.2(05)/2006/CTR-I, dated 25.08.2006, No.PA/19(44)/2007-Dy.CTM(C), dated 30.03.2009, and No.PA/20(241)/2010-RM(T), dated 20.09.2010, issued by respondent Nos.3, 2 and 1 respectively and declare the same as illegal and unjust, and consequently, to direct the respondents to set aside the same and grant all the incidental and consequential service benefits including mandatory benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in the respondent Corporation in the month of September, 1999 and his services were regularized in the cadre of Driver on 01.01.2000. Basing on the report No.AN.I./Bangalore, dated 12.04.2006, he was placed under suspension by respondent No.3 vide proceedings, dated 02.05.2006, and on the same date, he was served with a charge sheet with the charge of driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner with lack of anticipation, and for having failed to take precautionary measures while driving the vehicle to prevent a fatal accident besides causing loss of revenues to the Corporation. Though he offered his explanation to the charge sheet, having not satisfied with his explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting regular enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to respondent No.3 on 24.07.2006. After receiving enquiry report by disciplinary authority, petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 19.08.2006 and he offered his explanation to the show cause notice on 23.08.2006. Respondent No.3, vide his proceedings, dated 25.08.2006, imposed penalty which reads as follows: “Hence, I hereby order that your next annual increment be deferred for a period of two years which shall have the effect on your future increments and an amount of Rs.100/- be recovered from your salary in one instalment towards cost of damages besides treating the period of suspension as not a duty for the purpose of leave and increments.” Aggrieved by the final order, dated 25.08.2006, of respondent No.3, he preferred an appeal to respondent No.2 on 15.02.2007 and the same was rejected by him vide his proceedings, dated 30.03.2009. Thereafter, he preferred review petition to respondent No.1 on 13.04.2001 and the same was also rejected by him vide his proceedings, dated 20.09.2010. A crime was registered and trial was conducted in C.C.No.343 of 2006 in which judgment, he was acquitted on 25.01.2001. The disciplinary authority, accepting the report of the enquiry officer, is supposed to assign reasons for imposing penalty against the delinquent employee. But respondent No.3 failed to assign any reasons for imposing penalty and the final order is not a reasoned order. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry without considering the evidence available on record and hence, the impugned final order issued by respondent No.3 is not sustainable in law. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. There cannot be any dispute that this Court, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re- appreciate the evidence. To know whether findings are based upon the evidence adduced in the departmental proceedings, necessarily the evidence has to be referred. The disciplinary authority, in the first instance, and on appeal, the appellate authority, are the competent authorities to give appropriate punishment to the employee depending upon his misconduct. The law is well settled that the punishment should be in proportionate with the proved misconduct. Unless the punishment is shocking to the conscious of the Court, ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. 5. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is that he caused an accident resulting in the death of a person, who was driving the scooter. It is also not in dispute that the police registered a case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. After conducting trial, the competent Criminal Court found him not guilty of the charge levelled against him, and accordingly, acquitted him. No doubt, the findings of the criminal Court are not binding in the departmental proceedings, but, at the same time, it can be taken as a guidance for the purpose of giving appropriate punishment. Even in the departmental proceedings, it came in the evidence that a scooterist, without observing the rules of the road, came on to the road suddenly without taking note of the bus, which was being driven by the petitioner. When a scooterist or a person came on to the road suddenly, it may not be possible for the driver to slow down the vehicle however slowly he may be driving. So, in such circumstances, negligence cannot be solely attributable to the driver of the bus. Therefore, the charge alleged against the petitioner cannot be attributable solely to the petitioner because there was negligence on the part of the scooterist in coming on to the road suddenly. In such circumstances, the disciplinary authority ought to have imposed a minor penalty. Hence, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed in the appeal, is not in consonance with the proved misconduct. 6. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the punishment to that of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect, instead of with cumulative effect as ordered by the disciplinary authority. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 27th April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.12394 OF 2011 Date:27-04-2011 AMD