IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18592 of 2008 Between: C.Md. Dawood E-108021 Driver S/o.Abdulla Yemmiganur Depot R/o.Yemmiganur,Kurnool District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C rep.by Managing Director Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Kurnool Region at Kurnool Dist 3 The Divsional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Kurnool Division at Kurnool Dist 4 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Yemmiganur,Kurnool at Kurnool District .....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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 2years with cumulative eﬀect besides treating the period of suspension period as not duty vide proc No.PA/19(262)/2005 2005-RM "O" dt 26-10-2005 while considering the review petition against the orders of removal in proc No.01/2(8) /05 YMGR Dt 09-09-2005 as illegal high handed and arbitrary action without jurisdiction contrary to APSRTC Regulations and as such liable to be set aside the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in Yemmiganur Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge sheet alleging that on 22.06.2005, when he was driving the bus on the route Yemmiganur to Raichur, he hit a mad man, causing serious injuries, that lead to his death on the next day. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not being satisﬁed with it, the Depot Manager, the fourth respondent herein, appointed an Enquiry Oﬃcer. The charge framed against the petitioner was held proved in the domestic enquiry. Taking the same into account, the fourth respondent passed an order, dated 09.09.2005, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, the third respondent herein. The appeal was rejected on 14.10.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the second respondent by ﬁling a review. The second respondent passed an order, dated 26.10.2005, setting aside the order of removal, directing reinstatement of the petitioner, but imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect. Other ancillary directions were also issued. The petitioner challenges the order, dated 26.10.2005, passed by the second respondent insofar as it inﬂicted the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The charge against the petitioner is that he hit a mad man, while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that the victim of the accident succumbed to injuries. The petitioner did not dispute the occurrence of the accident, but oﬀered an explanation to the eﬀect that while crossing the road, the person had suddenly stopped on the road and when the bus approached him, he fell down. In the domestic enquiry, the charge against the petitioner was held proved and the fourth respondent directed removal of the petitioner from service. The second respondent did not disturb the ﬁndings recorded in the domestic enquiry, but has shown indulgence and granted the relief of reinstatement into service. The punishment imposed by the second respondent against the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate or without basis. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. It is however, directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of service and the period between the date of suspension and the date of reinstatement shall be counted for the terminal benefits. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.08.2008. kdl