IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15961 of 1999 Between: A.Babu Prasad Rao, S/o A.Thirupathaiah, Traffic Police Station, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur. 3 The Registrar, A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. .....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, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent 1 and 2 in awarding the punishment of Reduction in Time Scale of pay by 2 stages for a period of 2 years with eﬀect on future increments and pension and terating the suspension period of the Petitioner as "Not on Duty" is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the A.P. Civil Service Rules, 1991 and set aside the orders of the 1st respondent passed in C.NO.70/PR/90, dt 27-1-1993 as well as the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in C.No.33/Appl./93 dt 9-6-93 and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.15961 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) This writ petition is directed against an order made in O.A.No.4013 of 1993 dated 23-04-1999 whereunder the order imposing the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two incremental stages for two years, as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority, was confirmed and O.A. was dismissed. 2. There is no necessity of going into all details. Suﬃce to notice that when the petitioner/delinquent oﬃcer brought coﬀee to be served to Sub-Inspector of Police, the Head Constable seems to have consumed the same and there arose, a small dispute between the delinquent oﬃcer and the Head Constable. Sofar as the quarrel was concerned, there is no dispute. But, it has come in the evidence that the Head Constable caught hold of the shirt of the delinquent oﬃcer and later, both of them quarrelled with each other. However, the Tribunal felt that the quarrel with the Head Constable is a high-handed behaviour on the part of the petitioner/delinquent oﬃcer and it is unbecoming of a person, who is a member of disciplined force. It was further held that though the petitioner has not caused any bleeding injury to the Head Constable, as was complained, it amounts to misconduct on the part of the petitioner, therefore the charges are established and thus, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the order of punishment. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy strenuously contended that the order of the Tribunal is inconsistent for the reason that while observing that the Head Constable had caught hold of the shirt of the delinquent oﬃcer and both of them quarrelled, it was found that it is the high-handed behaviour on the part of the delinquent oﬃcer, which is erroneous and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for contesting respondents supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. We have given our earnest consideration to the respective contentions and perused the impugned order and material made available on record. Admittedly, there was a quarrel between the Head Constable and the petitioner herein. The quarrel emanated out of a small incident when the petitioner brought coﬀee to be served to Sub-Inspector of Police, Head Constable seems to have consumed the same without his notice. In fact, it has come in the evidence that the Head Constable caught hold of the shirt collar of the petitioner and there the dispute had arisen, therefore it is reasonable to infer that the initial provocation was made by the Head Constable, but not the petitioner. 5. Though we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case, it can be seen that there is certain misconduct on the part of the petitioner also. We are of the considered opinion that the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two incremental stages for two years, with cumulative eﬀect, is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. In those circumstances, we deem it appropriate to modify the said punishment to that of ‘reduction in the time scale of pay by two incremental stages for two years, without cumulative eﬀect’. The impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the Tribunal are accordingly modified. 6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 30-07-2008 bsc