IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 569 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/11/2008 in WP NO : 18228 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Zaheerabad Depot, Medak District. 2 Smt P.Parvathamma, W/o. Narsimulu R/o. Kyasaram, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District Petitioner No.2 isbrought on record as LRs. of deceased Petitioner No.1as per court order dt 24-9-03in WPMP 23944/03 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 P.Narsimlu, S/o. Sailu, (Died Per L.Rs. Driver, E.252143, R/o. Kysaram, Gajwel (M), Medak District. 2 Smt. P.Parvathamma, W/o. Late Narsimulu, R/o. Kysaram, Gajwal Mandal, Medak District (Respondent No.2 is brough on record as LRs of deceased Respondent No.1 as per corut order dated 24-9-2003 in 3 The Labour Court-Ii Rep by its Presidint Officer, 4th Floor, Chandravihar Complex, M.J.Road Hyderanad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 569 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the order, dated 19.11.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18228 of 1999. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the writ petitioners and the appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. Originally, 1st petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the award dated 18.12.1998 passed in I.D.No.75 of 1994 by the Labour Court II, insofar as denial of backwages and imposition of punishment of deferment of two annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect, is concerned. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st petitioner died and therefore, his wife was brought on record. The learned single Judge having observed that the charges, at the most, prove somewhat negligence or indifference or insensitivity on the part of the petitioner and not beyond that, for which, a far lesser degree of penalty is warranted, set aside the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent of imposition of the penalties and directed the Corporation to impose punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. It was also directed that the Corporation shall pay the entire retirement benefits, backwages and all other benefits to the 2nd petitioner on the basis of the above mentioned punishment substituted by the Court. Having aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The material on record goes to show that the petitioner was charge sheeted for not stopping the vehicle AEX 5477 at the outskirts of Nandikandi village to allow the passengers of failure vehicle No.AEZ 3673, while proceeding on the same direction and for having caused much inconvenience to the travelling public, besides loss of legitimate revenue of the corporation and for having failed to stop the vehicle despite stopped by the AM (T)/Enquiries, Sangareddy and the STI/ZHB, who were also travelling in the failure bus, and after enquiry, he was removed from service. On the dispute raised before the Labour Court, it has disposed of the same modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of imposition of deferment of two annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect apart from denying the backwages. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition insofar as denial of backwages and imposition of punishment of deferment of two annual increments, is concerned. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition to the extent as stated above. The charges show negligence on the part of the writ petitioner. If it is scrutinized, the punishment imposed by the Corporation as well as the Labour Court is very disproportionate in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions as observed by the learned single Judge. It is also pertinent to note that the 1st petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition. In the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the charge and in view of the fact that the bereaved family of the 1st petitioner has been wandering around the courts since 10 years, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Date: 28th April, 2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO :569 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 28th April, 2009