THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 131 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years, which shall have effect on future increments, besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes, as bad, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and disproportionate; consequently to set aside the impugned order dated 1.2.2002 and direct the respondents to allow the deferred increments to be drawn by the petitioner. It appears, while the petitioner was working as Conductor in APSRTC at Kalwakurthy Bus Depot and discharging his duties on the route – Hyderabad to Amangal (N/O) on 10.8.2001, at Stage No.3 (Veldanda), a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found and a charge sheet was issued on 20.8.2001 levelling the following three charges: “1. Has failed to observe the rule ‘Issue & Start’. 2. Has failed to collect the requisite fare of Rs.8/- from a passenger who was found traveling without ticket. The Conductor also failed to issue ticket to him who has boarted at Amangal and bound for Kalwakurthy ex-stages 6 to 1. 3. Has closed the tray Nos. of all denominations in the SR No.A6/9213612 dt.10.8.2001 up to Stage No.3 without issuing ticket to the said passenger”. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but the same was not accepted and domestic enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer conducted detailed enquiry and found the charges leveled against the petitioner, proved. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 1.2.2002 imposing the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two years, which shall have effect on his future increments, besides treating the period of suspension as ‘Not on duty’ for all purposes. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a case where the petitioner failed to collect the fare and issue ticket. Even the passenger in question has admitted that he has not paid fare and taken ticket at the time of check at Stage No.3. However, since the charges are admitted, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges and the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the impugned order. Assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect is disproportionate to that of misconduct. Apart from that, imposing punishment of treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes amounts to double jeopardy. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the charges are grave in nature and though there were only 23 passengers at the time of check, the petitioner was sheer negligent in issuing the tickets properly. The basic duty of a Conductor is to count the passengers and issue tickets, but the petitioner failed to perform the said basic duty and, therefore, the punishment imposed by the respondent- management cannot be said to be either disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and proved or double jeopardy. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. In his explanation, the petitioner himself accepted that he had neither collected the money nor issued the tickets and it was a mistake on his part in not taking into consideration the person who was sleeping on the back seat in a drunken condition as he could not notice him. The said passenger himself admitted that he has neither paid money nor taken ticket. Nothing was attributed to the petitioner to say that he had an intention to defraud the revenues of the respondent- Corporation etc. nor any of his past conduct was discussed by the disciplinary authority. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The petitioner deserves punishment of two increments without cumulative effect, for the negligence on his part. Apart from that, the punishment of treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes is also excessive and disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. In fact, ‘for all purposes’ would mean that the service during the period of suspension cannot be treated even for the purpose of seniority etc. This punishment is more serious than the punishment of stoppage of two increments. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondents ought not to have imposed the second punishment of treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. Generally speaking, in such conditions, whenever it is found that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to that of the misconduct, the matter needs to be remanded for reconsideration by the disciplinary authority. But, now it is more than 10 years since the misconduct arose and the proceedings concluded. Under those circumstances, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the litigation at this stage itself. Therefore, the impugned order dated 1.2.2002 passed by respondent No.1 is modified and the respondents are directed to impose the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and treat the period of suspension as ‘on duty’. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any arrears of salary etc. for the said period. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above modification. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 3-6-2010. MVB.