THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO. Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. Writ Petition No. 36358 of 1998. Between: D.Gangadhar. ……..Petitioner vs. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad and two others. ……….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO. Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. WRIT PETITION No. 36358 of 1998. ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the Divisional Manager, Nizamabad of A.P.S.R.T.C. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) on 21.2.1994 modifying the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent-Depot Manager against the writ petitioner and also seeking ancillary reliefs in connection therewith. The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited as a Conductor in the Corporation on daily wage basis in the month of February 1987 and subsequently his services have been regularized with effect from 1.7.1988. While he was working as a Conductor attached to the Nizamabad depot of the Corporation, he has absented from duty from 27.1.1993 till 11.2.1993 i.e. for 16 days continuously. It is asserted that due to his health condition, he could not report to duty. For this misconduct of unauthorised absence, he was proceeded as a measure of discipline and the Depot Manager ultimately passed orders on 13.4.1993 imposing punishment of removal from service. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal on 11.6.1993 to the Divisional Manager of the Corporation at Nizamabad. Entertaining his appeal, the Divisional Manager passed the impugned orders on 21.2.1994 modifying the punishment of removal to that of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. It was also ordered that the period between the date of his removal till he rejoins duty shall not be treated as spent on duty. It is averred by the writ petitioner that the orders of the Divisional Manager dt. 21.2.1994 have not been served on him and consequently he made lot of effort to secure a copy thereof and ultimately he approached the Depot Manager, Nizamabad on 5.3.1998 seeking reinstatement and the Depot Manager in turn reinstated him on 7.3.1998. It is his case that even after reinstatement he was paid wages and the basic pay, which is minimum of the scale of pay of the post of Conductor. Hence, the above writ petition has been instituted. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is pointed out that even the appellate authority has found the charge laid against the writ petitioner as held established in as much as the writ petitioner absented himself from duty which resulted in dislocation of the work at the depot. Conductors and Drivers form part of running staff of the Corporation and if any one of them does not report to duty in time, the service to be operated from the depot would get adversely affected and some times, it might even result in cancellation of services on certain routes which will cause adverse impact on the transportation facilities of the travelling public. It was further pointed out that the writ petitioner did not report to duty promptly even after the appellate authority passed orders allowing his appeal on 21.2.1994 and he took more than four years time to report at Nizamabad depot on 5.3.1998. But however taking a sympathetic view, he has been admitted to duty on 7.3.1998. Thus, the very conduct of the writ petitioner does not inspire his bona fide intention to serve the Corporation. In paragraph No.5, it was stated that the old pay, which was drawn at the time of his removal from service has been adopted on his reinstatement and thereafter only the punishment of deferment of annual increments is effected. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has also produced a copy of Service Register of the writ petitioner wherein in the record of events it was noted that the scale of pay of the post of Conductor was Rs. 455-15-575-20-795 at the time he was appointed on temporary basis as a Conductor on 1.7.1988. It is further noted that his pay was fixed at Rs. 1070/- in the revised pay scales of 1989, in the scale of pay of Rs. 1035-35-1315-45-1810. Thus at the time of his removal his pay was obviously raised to Rs. 1105/- due to addition of annual increment of Rs. 35/- to Rs. 1070/-. Thus on reinstatement his pay was continued at Rs. 1035/-. Therefore, the grievance sought to be made out by the writ petitioner in this regard is imaginary and unsustainable. The Corporation has not paid him at the minimum of the scale of pay of Conductors, as noticed supra at Rs. 1035/-. Even with regard to punishment imposed by the appellate authority, the record of events in his Service Record would clearly disclose that the writ petitioner is aware of his reinstatement orders. However, he reported to duty at Nizamabad only on 5.3.1998, which is clearly four years later. To the extent of charges levelled against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence from duty there can hardly be any doubt or dispute. Running staff of the Corporation cannot stay away from reporting to duty without obtaining prior sanction of leave or without obtaining prior permission in that regard. If the running staff do not report to duty promptly, it will create dislocation of work of the Corporation and ultimately it would affect the general public. Cancellation of bus services would result in not only creating bad impression in the minds of the general public but would also have adverse effect on the productivity of the organization. When fleet are available for operation, lack of man power for running the fleet will not contribute to the effective utilization of the fleet which alone can fetch revenue to the Corporation. I therefore do not see any justification to interfere with the punishment imposed by the appellate authority of deferring his two annual increments with cumulative effect. However, if the writ petitioner has any grievance still subsisting with regard to pay fixation on his reinstatement at Nizamabad depot on 7.3.1998, it is open to him to represent the matter with necessary details seeking appropriate pay fixation. If any such representation is made, I am confident that it will be dealt with on its merits, within a maximum period of six months thereafter. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 1.12.12009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO. WRIT PETITION No. 36358 of 1998. Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009.