IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33629 OF 2010 Between: V.M.K. Murthy. - - - Petitioner. AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director and another. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33629 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the second Respondent in ordering recovery of Rs.78,941/- from the salary of the petitioner in 60 installments vide final order No.M1/541(4)/06-RDG, dated 23-10-2010 as arbitrary, contrary to law, invalid and unjust and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to conduct an enquiry and stop the recovery of the amount in the interest of justice. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows : The petitioner is working as Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at Rayadurg Bus Depot of Ananthapur District. On 30-09-2002, he was allotted the duty of conducting the Bus bearing registration No.AP10 Z 8673 en route Rayadurg – Hyderabad. By the time he reported to the duty at 09-15 hours, the concerned driver of the bus already received relevant parcels and corresponding receipts but did not handover the same to him. Subsequently, one parcel was handed over to him by the driver at Mehboobnagar and the driver informed him that the remaining four parcels were to be handed over at Hyderabad. After alighting at Hyderabad, the driver noticed that the four parcels which were to be handed over at Hyderabad were not available, it took place at the ANL Parcel Counter of Hyderabad Central Bus Station. Subsequently the driver reported the matter in the concerned police station and the same was registered as F.I.R. No.582 of 2002. Thereafter, on a report submitted by the Senior Traffic Inspector, A.P.S.R.T.C. Rayadurg, the second respondent herein issued Charge sheet-cum-show cause notice vide No.M1/541/(4)/06-RDG, on 26-11-2006 to the petitioner. The petitioner on receiving the said show cause notice, submitted his explanation on 12-01-2007 asserting that he had not received any parcels and not affixed his signature in connection with the acceptance of ANL Parcels and as such he was not liable for the missing of the parcels. Consequently, the second respondent got issued another show cause notice vide No.M1/541/(4)06-RDG, dated 24-05-2007 claiming that the explanation submitted by him earlier was not convincing and directing to explain why the value of the parcels i.e. Rs.78,941/- should not be recovered from his salary in 40 installments, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07- 08-2007. Later, after a lapse of three years and two months a final order No.M1/541(4)/06-RDG, dated 23-10-2010 was issued by the second respondent holding the petitioner responsible for the loss of the parcels and ordered to recover the said amount in 60 installments from his salary. Aggrieved by the action of the second respondent in ordering the recovery of Rs.78,941/- in 60 installments from his salary contrary to APSRTC Employees’ (CC & A) Regulations, 1967 the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents-APSRTC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that immediately after coming to know that the four parcels were missing, the driver of the bus lodged a report which was registered as a case in Crime No.582 of 2002 on the file of Rayadurg police station and by virtue of the Circular No.15/2009, dated 04-05-2005 issued by the Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad the enquiry should have been conducted within three months from the date of missing of the articles subject to feasibility, but for four years no enquiry was initiated, accordingly and only on 26-11-2006 the charge memo was issued calling for his explanation, for which, he gave explanation holding that the driver of the bus issued necessary receipts and he was only responsible for the missing of the parcels and four years later a final order was passed for the recovery of Rs.78,941/- from his salary which is contrary to law, unjust and invalid and accordingly is liable to be set aside. 5. No dispute is raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents-APSRTC with regards to the circumstances of the case and relevant provisions, however he has opposed the petition. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to grant the relief as prayed for? 7. It is admitted by both the parties that the conductor of the APSRTC bus was only responsible for the loss of goods carried in the passenger buses generally. It is also admitted by them that the goods were to be charged and luggage tickets were to be issued separately observing necessary formalities. 8. Emphatically, it is the claim of the petitioner that necessary receipts were given by the driver for taking the parcels. It is pertinent to note here that for a period of four years from the date of submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the Corporation Authorities kept silent without taking any action in the matter which is against the said rule, which clearly provides that relevant enquiry should be completed within three months from the date of such loss. The wording of the rule provides that it is mandatory in nature. Even otherwise, it is to be considered as to what was the reasonable time in taking up necessary enquiry with reference to the time given for the disposal of the matter. In my opinion, another two or three months period can be taken as reasonable in that context. In other words, four years time taken by the Corporation cannot be taken as reasonable time for the purpose of conducting necessary enquiry and pass orders either in favour of or against the petitioner. 9. Therefore, it is nothing but acting against the provisions and the principles of natural justice and causing harassment to the petitioner, which is not tenable. On the other hand, there is no basis to say that any witnesses were examined and proper enquiry was conducted and any speaking order was passed analyzing the evidence recorded before passing the final order. When an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner he should have been given an opportunity of being heard and also necessary evidence was to be adduced to establish the charges, whereas such measures were not taken. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the enquiry proceedings are not tenable. 10. Therefore, as the final order passed directing to recover the said amount from the salary of the petitioner which is not in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice, the same order is liable to be set aside. Otherwise, the continuance of the enquiry proceedings and the implementation of the order is nothing but abuse of the process of law. With these observations, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the final order No.M1/541/06-RDG, dated 23-10-2010 passed by 294 the second respondent. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date.07-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOAHN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33629 OF 2010 December, 07, 2011 DSH