IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1580 of 2006 Between: Mohd. Taher, S/o. Late Muzaffer, E.No. 42589, working presently at Miyapur Depot, R/o. H.No. 12-2-115, Muradnagar, Hyderabad - 028. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kukatpally Depot, Sanathnagar Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action taken by the respondent is issuing final order No. 01/535 (74)/04-KP, dt. 26-2-2005 for reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period to tow years with cumulative effect, event after imposing tow other punishment i.e., treating suspension period as not on duty and punishment of transfer to JDM/Depot, is as illegal unjust and contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice by setting aside the final order dt. 26-2- 2005 and contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice by setting aside the final order dt. 26-2-2005 and granting all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1580 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was functioning as a Controller in Kukatpally Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 2004. On 19.05.2004, he was kept on duty at E.S.I.Hospital. As a part of his duty, he was under obligation to entrust double duties to drivers and conductors, depending on the necessity, by paying the requisite amounts. The petitioner submitted an account to the Depot, stating inter alia that he paid a sum of Rs.280/- as double duty amount to a Conductor by name Muralidhar. About one month later, it was found that the said conductor did not discharge any double duty at all and that the signature on the account sheet submitted by the petitioner was a forged one. Thereupon, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner, by framing necessary charges. Departmental enquiry was conducted. Through his orders, dated 26.02.2005, the respondent herein imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as not on duty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Sanathnagar. The appeal was rejected on 08.09.2005. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner submits that on account of pressure of work, he could not verify the genuinity of the person, who received the amount and soon after it was brought to his notice, he has remitted a sum of Rs.280/-. He contends that the punishment is severe in nature. The respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the very fact that the petitioner remitted the amount proved beyond any doubt that he misappropriated the amount, though temporarily. It is also alleged that but for the detection of the fraud, the petitioner would have retained the amount. The petitioner does not dispute that he paid a sum of Rs.280/- to a conductor towards double duty. To that extent, he submitted an account to the Depot, on the same day. It was only on 19.06.2004, that the Assistant Depot Clerk found that the alleged payment made by the petitioner is non-existent. As soon as the petitioner came to know about it, he remitted a sum of Rs.280/- together with a report. That, in turn, came to be remitted a few months later. The charges framed against the petitioner were proved on his own admissions. As a Controller, the petitioner was under obligation to ensure that the payments are made by him to the correct persons, and for justifiable cause. Before a driver or conductor is paid the double duty amount, the Controller must be sure about the route, the names of the persons entrusted with the double duties, the number of bus, the timings of duty etc. Further, the Controller is bound to know the conductors and drivers of his depot; and it is difficult to imagine that any amount would be paid to an individual, by mistaking him to be a conductor. A detailed domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not able to establish that he is not guilty of the charges framed against him. On the other hand, the management clearly established the charges. No exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer or the decision taken by the respondent. One aspect, which impresses this Court, is that as soon as the lapse on the part of the petitioner was brought to his notice, he remitted the amount, together with the report. To a large extent, that would mitigate the gravity of the charge. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is confined to one increment instead of two increments. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, by directing that the punishment imposed against the petitioner shall be that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage, for a period of one year, with cumulative effect and that the period of suspension shall be treated as not on duty. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 12.03.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1580 of 2006 Date: 12.03.2008 JSU