IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18256 OF 2011 Date:30.06.2011 Between:- N.Narayana Murthy .. Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep.by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18256 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.4 in imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide Proc.No.M1/399(01)/08-IBM, dated 25.06.2011, as arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and as such, set aside the same by ordering to pay all the service benefits forthwith. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner has been working as a Routine Clerk in respondent Corporation at Ibrahimpatnam Depot for the last 38 years and going to retire from service on superannuation on 30.06.2011. On 09.04.2008, he was called by the then Depot Manager but he failed to attend immediately. On account of acute stomach ache, he went to bathroom and afterwards, when he went to the Depot Manager, he was scolded in an abusive language and threatened. He submitted a complaint in Ibrahimpatnam Police Station on the same day. On 16.04.2008, the Depot Manager passed an order of suspension alleging that the petitioner resorted to acts of indiscipline and brought down the reputation of the Corporation not only by causing nuisance but also by filing a complaint in the police station. He challenged the order of suspension by filing W.P.No.9242 of 2008, which was allowed. He was continuing in the service. An enquiry was conducted on 27.08.2008 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Since he is going to retire from service on 30.06.2011, there are no increments to be deferred. The enquiry report was not furnished to him and no comments/objections were called for. Even after conducting enquiry, the disciplinary authority failed to issue a show cause notice and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the punishment imposed is a severe punishment totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct and that if it is not modified, it will have serious repercussion throughout the service of the petitioner and after his retirement and therefore, he prays to modify the punishment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that since it is a case of serious misconduct, a proper punishment was imposed by the appointing authority and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. There cannot be any dispute that it is the appointing/disciplinary authority to impose an appropriate punishment basing upon the proved misconduct. It is settled law that punishment should not be disproportionate with the proved misconduct or shock the conscience of the Court. The enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry. According to the enquiry officer, charges levelled against the petitioner are proved beyond preponderance of probability. It is not the case of the petitioner that enquiry was not conducted or principles of natural justice are not followed. When the enquiry is conducted by following a due procedure, it is for the disciplinary authority to give appropriate punishment. As the petitioner was called on each and every occasion, he must have got annoyed and used the words “Neevu yemi DMvu, prathidaniki nannu pilichi aduguthavu. Na 30 samvatsaramula sarvisulo ilanti DMnu chusanu. Ikkada kakapothe inka chala chotla vudyogamu chestanu. Nannu champutava, kodathava?” The petitioner is not expected to use such a harsh language against his superior officer, but the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. It will have serious repercussions not only during his service but also after retirement for the act of uttering some words in a fit of anger. Therefore, the punishment imposed by respondent No.4 can be modified by this Court and the deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect, as ordered by the disciplinary authority, is modified to that of deferment of two annual increments without cumulative effect. 6. Accordingly, with the above modification, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th June, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.18256 OF 2011 Date:30.06.2011 AMD