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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18679 of 2008 Between: R.Laxman S/o.late Vittaiah Lingareddy Pet Yella Reddy(M) Nizamabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C rep.by its Managing Director Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Nizamabad Region,Nizamabad 3 The Divisional Manager (Now Called as dy.Chief Traffic Manager) A.P.S.R.T.C Nizamabad 4 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Bus Depot Bheemgal Nizamabad District 5 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Bus Depot Kamareddy Nizamabad 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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari quash the impugned proceedings No.Stneo/19(134)/05 DVM NZB dt 27-10-2005 in so far as imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of (2) years with cumulative eﬀect beside treating the entire intervening period as not duty and not granting all the consequential 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments duly treating the removal period as duty period with wages along with other beneﬁts in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Conductor in Bheemgal Depot of APSRTC. A charge sheet, dated 11.05.2005, was issued to him, alleging that having collected a fare of Rs.9/- , from a lady passenger, he did not issue ticket, and on noticing the checking party, he tried to punch a ticket. Other related procedural aspects were also mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he, no doubt, collected the fare, but even while he was issuing the ticket, check took place. Not being satisﬁed with the explanation, the fourth respondent appointed an Enquiry Oﬃcer. The charges, framed against the petitioner, were held proved, and on the basis of the same, the fourth respondent removed the petitioner from service, through his proceedings, dated 27.07.2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent. Through order, dated 27.10.2006, the third respondent allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of removal, but inﬂicted the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect. The period between the date of suspension and the date of reinstatement was directed to be treated as ‘not on duty’. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent himself recorded a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that the petitioner was in the process of issuing ticket and that he is not involved in any serious cash and ticket irregularities. He submits that in spite of such a ﬁnding, the punishment, which would have the eﬀect of reducing the emoluments of the petitioner for the rest of the service, was imposed. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has to work out his remedies by way of review and in fact, the petitioner had ﬁled review before the second respondent. She contends that the third respondent has taken into account the gravity of the charge and imposed the punishment. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner had a remedy of review before the second respondent. At the same time, it cannot be equated to that of an appeal and it is in rare cases that alternative remedy of review is treated as bar for entertaining the writ petition. This Court would certainly have declined to interfere in the matter, if it is a case of re-appreciation of evidence. The allegation against the petitioner is that having collected fare from a passenger, he did not issue ticket and started the process, after noticing the checking party. The charge, no doubt, was held proved in the domestic enquiry and accepted by the fourth respondent. In the appeal, the third respondent made the following observation in relation thereto: “It is clear that the conductor has collected the fare from a lady passenger and in the process of issuing the ticket. As the conductor was not involved in any serious C&TI case previously, the case is viewed leniently…” Before making this observation, the third respondent made a reference to the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner to the eﬀect that even while he was issuing ticket, a check has taken place. Once the third respondent has accepted that the petitioner was in the process of issuing ticket, it cannot be said that there was any serious irregularity on the part of the petitioner. The previous record was also considered as extenuating circumstance. In this factual background, the deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect, which would have its impact for the rest of the career of the petitioner as well as on the terminal beneﬁts, cannot be treated as either proportionate, or commensurate with the gravity. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the punishment of deferment of annual increment is imposed for a period of two years without cumulative eﬀect, for the reason that the petitioner ought to have completed the issue of ticket before noticing the checking party. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, modifying the order, dated 27.102.005, to the eﬀect that the punishment imposed therein shall be without cumulative effect. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.28.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ