IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THIRSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7220 of 2008 Between: V.Anjaiah S/o.late Biksham R/o.17-7, Nakrekal, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. 3 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Suryapet Division, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quash the impugned order of 3rd respondent passed in Proc.No.PA/19(26)/06-DVM-SRPT dated 20.4.2006 in so far as not granting all consequential benefits and imposing the punishment of reducing of payby (2) incremental stage from existing pay for a period of (2) years which will have effect on future increments besides treating the removal period as not on duty as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide Proc.No. PA/19(45)/06-RM.N dated 24.11.2006 as arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents' corporation to restore the above increments duly treating the removal period as duty period with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7220 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order, dated 20.04.2006, passed by the Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Suryapet Division, 3rd respondent herein, imposing the punishment of reducing pay by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, and denying other consequential benefits, while setting aside an order of removal. The petitioner is employed as a Driver in the Suryapet Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. When he was driving a bus on the route from Suryapet to Miryalaguda on 10.05.2005, an accident took place and a girl of nine years died. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, pointing out rash and negligence on his part. This was followed by a departmental enquiry. Through his order, dated 28.11.2005, the Depot Manager, 4th respondent herein, directed removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, under the relevant service regulations. The appeal was partly allowed, through order, dated 20.04.2006. The order of removal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service. Punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, which will have the effect on future increments, was imposed. Assailing the said punishment, the petitioner filed a review before the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected, through an order, dated 24.11.2006. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent was convinced about the fact that the petitioner is not exclusively responsible for the accident and that the record of the petitioner was free from any blemish; and still had imposed a punishment, that would have the effect of substantially reducing the emoluments for the rest of service. He further submits that the punishment is totally disproportionate. Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner had to approach the Labour Court, by seeking reference. She contends that this Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3. There is some uncertainty as to whether a reference against an order of the nature indicated above can be made to a Labour Court and whether the said Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment. That apart, unlike against an order of removal, the petitioner cannot have any direct access to the Labour Court. He has to depend upon the espousal by the trade union. If the matter does not warrant any appreciation of evidence and can be examined with reference to the undisputed facts, it can be dealt with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That an accident occurred and a girl died, is a matter of record. Though the charge was framed squarely blaming the petitioner for the accident, the report submitted by the Assistant Manager (T), Miryalaguda, who inspected the spot, soon after the accident, discloses that the petitioner took all possible precautions, and still the accident took place. It was alleged that the girl tried to cross the road and having come up to the middle of it, suddenly came back and in the process, the accident occurred. There cannot be any second opinion that a little more care and caution on the part of the petitioner would have averted the accident. The 3rd respondent himself was convinced that the punishment of removal was totally disproportionate, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The past service of seven years of the petitioner was found to be free from any remark. The punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect may appear to be not so harsh. However, the effect thereof in terms of loss of emoluments would be enormous. Reduction of pay by two incremental stages and stipulation of the period would result in double jeopardy. It should be either reduction by certain stages or stoppage for certain period. It cannot be both ways. Therefore, it has to be corrected to the extent that the punishment would be of pay reduction by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. The 3rd respondent has also directed that the period, from the date of removal till the date of reporting to duty, shall be treated as ‘not on duty’. Whatever may be the justification for such a direction, in the context of denial of back wages, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of past service, which, in fact, was found to be unblemished. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the order, dated 20.04.2006, passed by the 3rd respondent, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent, through his order, dated 24.11.2006, to the effect that the pay reduction of the salary of the petitioner shall be by two incremental stages, with cumulative effect and that he shall be entitled to continuity of service, without any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 03.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7220 of 2008 Date: 03.04.2008 JSU