IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 25617 of 2002 Between: R. Venkateswara Naik S/o R. Rama Naik R/o Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah. 3 Mr. S. Krishnakanth Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar. .....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 direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the punishment of postponement of annual increments for a period of two years without effect on future increments vide proceedings No. PA/83/(11)/93-RM'C' dated 26-2-1998 and consequential rejection order dated No. Ec/19(17)/2002-PD dated 11-11-2002 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the punishment with further direction to promote the petitioner to the post of Divisional Manager in the year 1998 on par with his juniors with consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following ORDER: The second respondent by order dated 26.02.1998 imposed on the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent by order, dated 11.11.2002, rejected the appeal. Hence, the writ petition. On the basis of certain complaints received against the petitioner herein, who was then working as Depot Manager in A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated. After a report of the Security Officer on the complaint, four charges were framed regarding (a) tampering of the attendance register relating to 01.05.1993; (b) for having drawn funds during tenure at Badvel for undertaking civil engineering works without detailed estimates and certificates from the concerned technical authorities and irregularities connected therewith: (c) for having ignoring spot enquiry report of the Assistant Manager (T), Nandyal on an incident that occurred on 25.01.1993 in which a pedestrian was killed and for negligently awarding lesser punishment to the involved driver; and (d) for having demanded and received illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from one Krishna Gupta, a resident of Badvel for arranging two buses on special hire to Tirupati during November and December, 1993. The petitioner was found guilty by the second respondent disciplinary authority for all the four charges and was imposed with penalty of stoppage of increment of two years without cumulative effect. The conclusion of guilt in respect of each of the charges is recorded on analysis of the material available on record and in a reasoned, well-considered and analysed order of the second respondent, dated 26.02.1998. The appeal of the petitioner against the second respondent’s order dated 26.02.1998 was considered by the Executive Director, Kadapa, and by order dated 05.09.1998, the appeal was rejected by a well considered order, in particular observing that the punishment awarded by the primary authority was moderate compared to the gravity of the offence proved and that a lenient view appears to have been taken by the disciplinary authority on the assumption that the petitioner would correct himself and be loyal to the organization. Not satisfied with the appellate result, the petitioner sought a review/revision. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, by order, dated 14.10.1999, found no reason to interfere with the decision of the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. Undeterred, the petitioner preferred another review against the order, dated 14.10.1999, rejecting the first review application. By order, dated 11.11.2002, the second review application was also rejected on the ground that no second review or revision lies. Thereafter, the writ petition is filed challenging the primary order dated 26.02.1998 of the second respondent and the order in the second review dated 11.11.2002. As the charges against the petitioner are grave including the fourth charge, which is of illegal gratification and all these charges were held proved on the basis of evidence/material on record and a very moderate penalty of stoppage of two increments was imposed, this Court perceives no grounds for judicial review. It is well settled that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appellate but is directed against the decision making process and not the decision itself. Conclusion in a departmental enquiry could be interfered with only if it arrived at without following the due procedure and in a manner that causes prejudice to the charged officer; the conclusion is based on no evidence; on the basis of wholly extraneous material; or the conclusion is perverse namely a conclusion that no reasonable person would arrive at in the circumstance of a case. The impugned order suffers from none of such infirmities, and therefore, does not justify judicial review. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J Date: 22.02.2008 va