THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.5021 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order of recovery vide Proceedings No.02/95(121)/02-MLG, dated 23.10.2002, impugned order of punishment vide Proceedings No.02/95(121)/02-MLG, dated 05.11.2007, and impugned order of respondent No.2 vide Proceedings No.PA/19(90)/07-RM.N, dated 27.12.2007, for not setting aside the above proceedings as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to repay a sum of Rs.48,000/- recovered from his salary along with interest at the rate of 18% from due date and with other consequential benefits by restoring the reduced increments. 2. The petitioner is a retired Deputy Superintendent (Traffic) in the respondent Corporation. His case is that he was initially appointed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 25.10.1972. Subsequently, he was promoted as ADC/Controller in the month of June, 1984. Further, he was promoted to the post of DC/T.I-III. On such promotion, he worked under respondent No.3 where he assumed charge as DC on 23.08.2001. While so, he was again promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Traffic) in June, 2005 and further promoted as Superintendent (Traffic) in October, 2007. While he was working as Superintendent (Traffic) under the control of respondent No.4, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007. While he was working as Deputy Clerk (Earnings), he was issued charge sheet, dated 11.10.2002, alleging that he was responsible for non availability of the season tickets. Consequent thereto, after due enquiry, he was imposed punishment vide order, dated 05.11.2007, passed by the Depot Manager, Miryalaguda holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, he was imposed punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority i.e., the Regional Manager, Nalgonda, keeping in view of the length of service of the petitioner, vide proceedings, dated 27.12.2007, modified the order of punishment imposed by the respondent No.3 as deferment of annual increment by one year which shall have cumulative effect on his future increments. The said order is one of the impugned orders in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.12.2007, submits that the petitioner is not inclined to consider the proceedings, dated 05.11.2007, and 27.12.2007, and that having regard to the fact that the respondent Corporation is not entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.48,000/- towards the value of 200 season tickets, as ordered by respondent No.4, if at all respondent No.4 wants, it can recover the printing and stacking charges that would be incurred towards denomination. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court in between Ch.P.Reddy vs. A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad and another. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submit that the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is on 23.10.2002 and the recovery was already affected. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court belatedly and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, it is not stated anything on the aspect of delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. 6. The writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings, dated 27.12.2007, issued by respondent No.2. The only point that arise for consideration is with regard to the validity of the proceedings, dated 23.10.2002, issued by respondent No.3 ordering for recovery of Rs.48,000/- being the value of 200 season tickets of Rs.240/- denomination in 16 equal instalments i.e., at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from October 2002 from the salary bills of the petitioner. The petitioner was charged with irregularity of missing of season tickets for which, an enquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the representation made by the petitioner was also considered. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court in the judgment cited supra, quashed the impugned order therein. This Court, in the said judgment, considered the relevant regulations and held as under: “Under this provision, if the Corporation faces a pecuniary loss by an employee's negligence the amount lost by the Corporation can be recovered wholly or partly. In no case, an amount more than the amount which was lost by the Corporation can be recovered from the negligent official. Therefore, clause (v) of Regulation 8 also does not permit the Corporation to impose a penalty which is more than the amount of the loss the Corporation has suffered. Admittedly, in this case the respondents have not suffered loss of the amount which the tickets could fetch if they were sold to the passengers travelling in the buses. They have only suffered the loss which was incurred by the Corporation in their printing and stacking, that cost is also given in the impugned order. The Corporation has suffered a loss of Rs.400/- towards printing value and Rs.284/- on account of the cost of the tray, that makes it Rs.684/- and this Court while entertaining the writ petition had allowed the respondents to recover Rs.1500/- from the petitioner.” For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed, but at the same time, it is directed that if any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the respondent shall retain the amount, which was actually lost due to the negligence of the petitioner, and the balance shall be paid back to the petitioner and if the amount is not recovered so far, the amount shall be recovered from the petitioner. The facts on hand are similar to the aforementioned case. In the impugned proceedings, the recovery is ordered towards the value of the tickets, but not in respect of the printing and stacking charges. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court, it is not permissible for the Corporation to recover the value of the denomination, but it can recover the actual loss incurred by the Corporation, which is by way of spending the money towards printing and stacking of the tickets. Therefore, following the above judgment, the impugned orders are set aside and the respondent Corporation is directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner retaining the actual amount that was spent on the printing and stacking of the tickets in question by calculating the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 15th November, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.5021 OF 2010 Date:15.11.2011 AMD