IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 8864 of 2001 BETWEEN: K.Lakshman Rao S/o Rosaiah 6-3-10/3, Near Alpha Jr.College, Nalgonda Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC., Rep by its MD., Musheerabad, Hyd.-20. 2 APSRTC., Rep by its Depot Manger, Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist. 3 APSRTC., Rep by its Traffic Manger (F), Nalgonda Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from the R2 and issue an appropriate writ, order of direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the R2 in issuing the impugned order in Procd. P1/656(3)/2000-SRPT, DT 16-1-2001, served on 19-1-2001 in recovering an amount of Rs 24,028/- from the salary of petitioner @ Rs 1001.16 ps per month in 24 equal monthly instalments as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law without jurisdiction in violation of regularisations of the respondent Corp, in violation of principle of natural justice & violative of Art 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner, who is working as a Superintendent in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the Proceedings dated 16th January 2001, passed in Proceedings No.P1/656(3)/2000-SRPT, by the 2nd respondent. 2. By the aforesaid order, the 2nd respondent has ordered to recover an amount of Rs.24,029/- from the salary of the petitioner in 24 equal instalments of Rs.1001.16 ps. per month, towards the arrears of license fee realizable from the licensees of the shops in the commercial complex of the Corporation at Suryapet. The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 31.05.2000, stating that there was negligence on his part in collecting the arrears of license fee from the licensees of shops in the commercial complex of the Corporation at Suryapet. The petitioner has filed his explanation on 10.07.2000, denying the said allegations. Thereafter, further show cause notice was issued on 30th August 2000, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.36,303/- should not be recovered from his salary towards penalty for not collecting the arrears of license fee. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has filed a detailed explanation running into four pages, on 3rd of January 2001. In his explanation, the petitioner has referred to various items on which the charge is levelled on him and on each of the charge, he has taken a specific stand and stated that he is not responsible for accumulation of arrears towards the license fee from the licensees of shops. Though the respondents have referred to the show cause notice dated 30th August 2000 and the explanation dated 3rd January 2001, but however, the impugned order is passed, ordering to recover an amount of Rs.24,029/-, merely by recording a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. 3. In the writ petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that as he is not responsible for accumulation of any arrears, no amounts can be collected from him by way of penalty. It is categorically pleaded by him that inspite of his specific stand disputing his liability, without conducting any regular inquiry and without recording any findings on the explanation offered by him, the impugned order is passed. 4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, by merely stating that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his negligence in collecting the license fee from the licensees of shops, and on filing explanation by him, it was found that there was lapse on his part in collecting the rents and arrears from the licensees of the shops. It is further stated that the said recovery was ordered on account of loss caused to the Corporation, and that the same is a minor penalty as per Regulation 8(1)(v) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’), framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. 5. Chapter IV of the Regulations deals with discipline and penalties. Under Regulation 8 (1), respondents are empowered to impose the penalty of recovery by recording good and sufficient reasons. Regulation 12 contemplates the procedure for imposing penalties, as per which, for imposing penalties under Regulation 8 (1)(vii) to (ix), necessary inquiry has to be conducted. Penalties as provided under Regulation 8 (1)(i) to (vi) are to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Regulation 12(1). Even as per the procedure for imposing minor penalties under Regulation 12(1), it contemplates furnishing a copy of the statement of allegations, the representation of the employee if any, and the findings arrived at on the allegations with reasons therefor, before imposing any penalty. In the case on hand, upon perusal of the impugned order for recovery, it is clear that not even a single reason is recorded. Merely on the ground that the penalty imposed is a minor penalty, the respondents are not empowered to recover the same without recording specific findings on the explanation filed by the petitioner. Explanation of the petitioner, dated 3rd January 2001 is made available in the material papers, wherein the petitioner has elaborately dealt with each of the allegations levelled against him, and disputed his responsibility. Inspite of such a detailed explanation, without recording even a single reason, the impugned order is passed in a routine and mechanical manner. 6. On the aforesaid short ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 16th January 2001 passed in Proceedings No. P1/656(3)/2000- SRPT, is hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd December 2008 ajr