IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2433 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/08/2005 in WP NO : 16262 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The A.P.Road Transport Corpn; Rep by its Regional Manager, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad. 2 The A.P.State Road Transport Corpn; Rep by its Depot Manager, BusDepot, Nizamabad. 3 The A.P. State Road Transport Corpn; Rep by its Depot Manager, Bus Depot Bhanswada, Nizamabad District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND T.Narsanna S/o. Late Mallanna R/o. 3-8-72, Kotagalli, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD The Court made the following : ........REGISTRAR THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2433 of 2005 Oral Judgment : ( Per Sri GM, J ) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 25-8-2005 passed in Writ Petition No.16262 of 2000 by the learned single Judge of this Court. The respondent herein was appointed as Driver in APSRTC in the year 1979 and on 3-3-1999 an accident occurred and a pedestrian died, who was crossing the road behind a jeep without observing the movement of the bus. In view of the same, a regular disciplinary proceeding was initiated and on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, he was removed from service on 15-7-1999. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. However, the review filed before the Regional Manager, Nizamabad- revisional authority was allowed on 17-1-2000 directing reinstatement of the respondent into service with continuity of service but without backwages. Further, the revisional authority imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and treating the period from the date of removal to the date of joining service as ‘not on duty’. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition No.16262 of 2000 was filed by the respondent. A learned Single Judge of this Court considering the report of the Enquiry Officer that the pedestrian was also responsible for his negligence in crossing the road and clean service was rendered by the respondent, set aside the order made by the revisional authority to the extent of treating the period out of service as not on duty. Thus, the learned Single Judge ordered for reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service, without backwages and to impose punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Corporation. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- Corporation vehemently contended imposition of punishment is domain of the appropriate authority and it is not for this Court to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the revisional authority. It is contended that punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be substituted in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the respondent would maintain that the order of the learned single Judge in the fact situation of the case is quite just and reasonable. He submitted that criminal Court on appraisal of the evidence on record acquitted the respondent, and the said acquittal order is not passed on the basis of benefit of doubt and that when charges are similar and identical to the criminal proceedings, the punishment imposed on the respondent pursuant to the departmental proceedings is not proper. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in APSRTC, ARMOOR DEPOT, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT v. S. RAMACHANDER ( ( 1) 2002 (6) ALD 778 (DB)), MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD v. P. KATA RAO ( (2) 2008 (3) ALD 139 (SC) ). In S. RAMCHANDER’s case ( 1 supra ) a workman was directed to be reinstated into service without backwages. A learned single Judge of this Court on evidence ordered payment of 25% of back-wages. The Division Bench of this Court while sustaining the order of the learned single Judge observed that since the petitioner therein was guilty of not collecting fare from only one passenger out of 61 passengers by inadvertence, such a lapse does not warrant denial of the entire back-wages. In P. KANTA RAO’s case ( 2 supra ) it was inter alia held by the Apex Court that acquittal of delinquent employee facing criminal charge by itself would not debar disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceedings and/or to continue with departmental proceeding already initiated. FR 54(b) reads as follows : “ (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement while under suspension; the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order – (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case ma be ; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.” The jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is limited and this Court ordinarily would not interfere with the quantum of punishment, unless the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of offence. Simply because the delinquent employee who was also facing criminal charges stands acquitted, the same by itself would not debar the authority in initiating and imposing the appropriate punishment in the given facts situation. Even with regard to the minor punishment, it is not for this Court to modify or review the punishment imposed by the revisional authority. It is to be noted that the revisional authority-Regional Manager, Nizamabad, allowed the revision, inter alia, directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but without backwages and treated the period from the date of removal to the date of joining service as not on duty. In fact the Revisionary authority by taking into account the past service of the respondent has taken a very lenient view of the matter and granted the said relief of reinstatement into service, and therefore the order of the learned single Judge in setting aside the order of the revisional authority to the extent of treating the period out of service, as not on duty, is unsustainable. In the circumstances, we hereby set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and restore the order of the revisional authority. Subject to above direction, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. ______ GM, J ______ VVA, J KK Dt: 29-6-2009 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2433 of 2005 29-6-2009