HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3895 of 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Chief Inspector, working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the charge sheet, dated 25.02.1997, issued in Proceedings No.03/118(6)/96-DVRM/ST/118(1)/97-RM(A), and the consequential orders of the disciplinary authority, dated 29.04.1998, as confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 15.10.1999, passed in Proceedings No.PA/19(10)/99-ED(C), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner has joined the service of the respondent-Corporation in the year 1976. He was promoted as Traffic Inspector in the year 1978, and thereafter, he was promoted as Chief Inspector in the year 1992. When he was working as Chief Inspector of Dharmavaram Depot in the year 1996, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and a charge sheet, dated 25.02.1997, was issued to him by framing the following two charges : “1. On 22.08.96 the TTI Sri S.Ramakrishna, RES/Hindupur Headquarters at Anantapur has handed over you the records mentioned from 1 to 8 in para no.2 connected with the check for which you have given acknowledgement categorically. Whereas out of 8 records given to you by the TTI, you have retransmitted only 6 records to the dealing Typist Sri B.Chennakesavulu and withheld and cornered the ticket bearing no.239/501625 of Rs.2.00 den. which was not punched and special report providing crucial evidence for establishing the fraud committed by the Conductor Sri S.N.Mohammad, duly colluding with Sri S.N.Mohammed the delinquent Conductor; but for which the Conductor would have been removed from the service of the Corporation and thus you were involved in breach of trust, dishonesty, and in tampering the records, duly colluding with the delinquent Conductor for destruction of evidences that go in establishing the serious fraud case against the conductor Sri S.N.Mohammed detected and booked by the TTIs of RES/HDP on 15.08.96 vide charge memo No.0670141 which amounts to serious misconduct under Reg.28(iii) (Collusion); 28(x) (Dishonesty); 28 (xiv) (Sabotage); and 28 (xxx) (Breach of Trust and Tampering of records) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having attended the office late at 11.45 hours on 25.12.96 as usual and signed in the attendance register which was immediately rounded off by the Depot Manager and marked absent for the day inspite of which you have tampered the same and marked leave for the day without obtaining sanction of any leave from the Depot Manager and thus involved in insubordination and tampering with the official records which was detected later after the payment of the salary for the day, on 1st February, 97 which amounts to misconduct under Reg. 28 (xvii) (Irregular Attendance, habitual late attendance), 28 (viii) (Insubordination) and 28 (xxx) (Tampering the evidences) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 3. On filing of explanation by the petitioner, denying the abovesaid charges, a regular inquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority by appointing the Depot Manager, Tadipatri as an inquiry officer, to hold a detailed domestic inquiry as per the provisions of the APSRTC Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967, framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The said inquiry officer, after conducting the inquiry, has submitted his report, by recording a finding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the said inquiry report, the disciplinary authority, by an order dated 29.04.1998, has imposed the punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages and reduction in seniority by 15 places. It was further ordered that the period of suspension should be treated as ‘not on duty’ for the purposes of leave, wages and increments. Though the petitioner has filed an appeal against the said order, the appellate authority also, by an order dated 15.10.1999, passed in Proceedings No.PA/19(10)/99-ED(C), dismissed the appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri G.Vidyasagar, appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. In this writ petition, it is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri G.Vidyasagar, that only six records were received by the petitioner in a sealed cover, relating to the cash and ticket irregularities case registered against the Conductor by name Sri S.N.Mohammed, and he handed over the said records to the concerned person on next day. It is further submitted that as per the procedure, whenever a check is made, the entire records will be entered in a specific form, namely 43-R, however, in the said form, the destroyed ticket and special report which is alleged to be missing, were not mentioned. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation that in this case, when the documents were handed over to the petitioner, he has removed two records, namely, one wrinkled ticket and the special report prepared by the checking officials in connection with the case registered against a Conductor by name Sri S.N.Mohammed. It is further submitted that when the petitioner has attended the office on 25.12.1996 at 11.45 hours, the Depot Manager has marked absent for the day, but inspite of the same, he has tampered with the same and marked leave for the day without obtaining sanction of any leave from the Depot Manager, and thus, involved in insubordination and tampering with the official records. 7. With reference to the above said rival contentions, it is to be seen that, though with reference to first charge, the petitioner has denied having received the documents in a sealed cover, but the same was thoroughly appreciated by the inquiry officer in the inquiry report dated 27.05.1997, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record. One of the witnesses, Sri S. Ramakrishna, who was examined at the preliminary inquiry stage, though clearly accepted that he has taken acknowledgement by handing over all the records numbering about 8, but at subsequent stage, when the domestic inquiry was being proceeded, he has changed his version and stated that he handed over the documents in a sealed cover, but did not specify as to how many documents he has handed over to the petitioner. The inquiry officer, with reference to earlier statements recorded in this regard, had come to a conclusion that all the documents which are 8 in number, were given to the petitioner/delinquent employee to hand them over to the Typist on the next day. The petitioner has received all the 8 documents under an acknowledgement, and thereafter, tampered with the same and failed to hand over to the typist, two documents namely, one wrinkled ticket and the records pertaining to the cash and ticket irregularities case registered against one Conductor by name Sri S.N.Mohammed. As much as the said aspects were considered by both the preliminary and appellate authorities having regard to the evidence on record, I do not find any illegality in such findings recorded by them. Even with reference to the 2nd charge, which is held proved, it appears that the Depot Manager having noticed that the petitioner has reported to duty at 11.45 hours on 25.12.1996, has marked absent to him, but inspite of the same, without any authority, the petitioner has tampered with the record and marked leave for the day, without obtaining sanction of leave from the Depot Manager, who is a competent authority. In that view of the matter, the disciplinary authority, in the disciplinary proceedings as well as the appellate authority, having considered the entire evidence on record, have correctly recorded the findings on the charges and had come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. In any event, as much as the inquiry officer having appreciated the evidence on record, has recorded the findings of fact, this Court is of the view that such findings are recorded based on the correct appreciation of documentary and oral evidence on record, and therefore, it cannot be said that the findings are recorded by the inquiry officer based on no evidence. Such pleas which are raised in the writ petition are also raised before the appellate authority, and even the appellate authority, having examined the evidence, approved the findings recorded by the inquiry officer while considering the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. Further, it is also to be noted that when the records were being handed over to the Typist by the petitioner, when it was pointed out by the Typist about shortage of one ticket which was seized during the check, the petitioner has deliberately struck off the ticket number on the TPT cover. The very conduct of the petitioner with reference to said charge and also the other charge, namely, altering the attendance register by mentioning as leave eventhough the Depot Manager has marked absent, are clearly proved in the inquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority. It is also relevant to note that the disciplinary authority itself, having taken note of seriousness of the charges, has recorded a finding, which reads as under; “Though the gravity of the charges are grave and warrants a penalty of dismissal from service, a lenient view was taken purely on compassionate grounds considering the length of service rendered by the delinquent”. 8. In view of the same, it is evident that though the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, and are proved in the inquiry, the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view on the proven misconduct of the petitioner, and even the appellate authority has re-considered the matter in the appeal filed by the petitioner and approved the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 15.10.1999, passed in Proceedings No.PA/19(10)/99-ED(C). 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the detailed orders passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th February 2009 ajr