IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4482 of 1999 Between: P.Brahmaiah, S/o Late Tirupathaiah, Aged 37 yrs, Occ: Conductor, R/o 2-2-1103/9/60, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad-13. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The AP.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Charminar Division, Koti Terminus, Koti, Hyderabad 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 4. The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the impugned order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.03/63(35)/97-BKP, dated. 19/12/1997 and consequently order of the 2nd respondent No.PA/20(121)/97-DVM, (CR), dated. 30/01/1998 in denying him the back wages and imposing the punishment of deferment of increments for a period of (2) years which shall have effect on petitioners future increments and the treating the period of removal as not on duty as arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents restore his Original position which was prevailing before the suspension and extend all the consequential benefits flowing out of it in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: MRS.NANDA RAMCHANDRA RAO , STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the appellate authority, the second respondent herein, vide his proceedings No.PA/20(121)/97-DVM (CR), dated 30-01-1998, wherein while disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner against removal from service, the second respondent has taken a lenient view of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case and passed an order directing reinstatement of the petitioner and imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and also treating the period out of service as not on duty. The petitioner was removed from service after conducting a detailed enquiry into the misconduct alleged against him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent- appellate authority, which modified the order as indicated above. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority, having observed that there is a clear contradiction in the memo and in the statement of passenger with regard to the stage of alighting and having observed that the TTI has committed error in framing the charge in the memo, ought to have set aside the removal order. The learned counsel further submits that the punishment imposed by the appellate authority modifying the order of the third respondent authority does not arise. I have gone through the entire record. The very charge is that the petitioner collected requisite fare at the boarding point itself, issued ticket No.025/204950 for Rs.,1.75 Ps to the passenger who boarded the bus at Tarnaka and bound for NGRI Gate-I ex.stages 15 to 16/17, which was already accounted for at Stage No.13. The same was disallowed and confiscated by the checking officials and obtained top punched ticket bearing No.025/204956. This itself shows that the petitioner has re-issued the ticket. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the disciplinary authority found that the petitioner was guilty of the charge and removed him from service. The appellate authority, however, took a lenient view of the matter and imposed a lesser punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect treating the suspension period as not on duty. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondents assert that charges were framed against the petitioner and the passenger has clearly stated in the statement obtained by them on the spot that he boarded the bus at Tarnaka and alighting at NGRI Gate-I. There seems to be some error in framing the charge. That itself does not absolve the petitioner from the misconduct. However, I am of the opinion that imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect itself is a major punishment. The appellate authority ought not to have further treated the period of absence i.e., from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement, as not on duty. Therefore, the impugned order, treating the period for which the petitioner was out of employment as “not on duty” is set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the period for which the petitioner was out of employment as “on duty”. But the petitioner is not entitled for any increments and other attendant benefits for such period. The said period can be counted only for the purpose of promotion and retirement benefits. The rest of the impugned order is confirmed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________ 03-12-2004. Lrkm. To 1. The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Charminar Division, Koti Terminus, Koti, Hyderabad 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 4. The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. 5. 2 CD copies.