IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5900 of 2000 Between: S.V.V.Rao R/o.Tiruvuru, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Regional Manager, Krishna Region at Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Depot Manager, Jaggaiahpet Depot, Krishna District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Depot Manager, Tiruvuru Depot, Tiruvuru, Krishna 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent herein in denying the past service vide proc.No.PA/19(132)/98-RM(B), Vijayawada dt:16-3-99 as illegal, unjust and contrary to the circular instructions and against to the principles of Natural justice and as such liable to be set aside in so far as it went against to the petitioner in denying his past service and consequential beneﬁts as illegal and arbitrary with a consequential beneﬁts as illegal and arbitrary with a consequential direction to the 3rd Respondent herein to pay the arrears of wages forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 5900 of 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by a Conductor working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of 1st respondent in denying him the beneﬁt of past service pursuant to the order dated 16th March 1999, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to extend the beneﬁt of past service and consequential benefits to him. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in APSRTC in the year 1979 and was attached to Jaggaiahpet Depot of Krishna District. On 05.04.1998, while the petitioner was conducting the bus bearing No. AP-10Z-1178 on the route from Jaggaiahpet to Bhacrachalam, a check was exercised by the inspecting oﬃcials at stage No.15/16 i.e. Garlavaddu Durga. On noticing certain cash and ticket irregularities during the process of inspection, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo dated 15.04.1998. The petitioner has ﬁled his explanation denying the charges. Thereupon, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing the Chief Inspector (E), Vijayawada, as an inquiry oﬃcer. The said inquiry oﬃcer, who conducted the inquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner, has recorded a ﬁnding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Based on the ﬁndings of the inquiry oﬃcer, by issuing a 2nd show cause notice, and also by considering the explanation ﬁled by the petitioner, an order of removal was passed on 02.07.1998. Though the petitioner has ﬁled appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the Regulations, he was unsuccessful and then carried the matter further by filing review petition before the Regional Manager. The Regional Manager, Vijayawada, by his order dated 16th March 1999, passed in Proceedings No.PA/19(132)/98- RM(B), ordered for reinstatement of petitioner as a fresh Conductor, subject to his medical ﬁtness, on paying the security deposit afresh. Even at this juncture, it is to be noticed that the review authority has also concurred with the ﬁndings of both the disciplinary and the appellate authorities on the charges framed against the petitioner, but however, keeping in view the length of service rendered by the petitioner, has taken a lenient view so far as the punishment is concerned. 3. In this writ petition, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though three charges were framed against the petitioner, the order of removal was passed based on charge No.2 only. It is submitted that though it is alleged that the petitioner has re-issued tickets that were already used, to six passengers, but however, such passengers were not examined. It is submitted that the order of removal was passed without considering the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner. 4. From the material on record, it is clear that at the time of inspection, the inspecting oﬃcials have collected the used tickets that were re-issued by the petitioner, and the statements of passengers to whom such tickets were issued, were also recorded. The said statements of passengers were also attested by the petitioner-Conductor, who has certiﬁed that the same were recorded in his presence. The numbers of the re- issued tickets were also mentioned in the impugned orders. Asmuch as the inspecting oﬃcials have recorded the statements of the passengers and the same were attested by the petitioner-Conductor, and when such inspectors were examined in the domestic inquiry, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the management. The sole ground taken by the petitioner that the passengers were not examined, cannot be the basis to reject the charges framed against him. The issuance of such tickets was denied by the petitioner by stating in his explanation to the eﬀect that the passengers might have produced the old tickets lying on the platform of the bus. But however, as the said tickets were seized from the possession of the passengers and their statements were also recorded, the explanation oﬀered by the employee was rightly rejected in the inquiry proceedings. In view of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, as confirmed by the appellate and review authorities, it cannot be said that the ﬁndings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings are either perverse or illegal, so as to interfere with the same. Though it is stated that as the petitioner has put in number of years of service, there is no reason to deprive the beneﬁt of his past service, but it is to be noted that even the review authority has concurred with the ﬁndings recorded by the disciplinary and appellate authorities on the charges framed against the petitioner, but however, the order for fresh appointment is made by the review authority by taking a lenient view in view of the long service rendered by the petitioner. Merely because such a beneﬁt is given in a case of this nature, where concurrent ﬁndings are recorded by the disciplinary, appellate and review authorities on the charges framed against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the past service beneﬁts were illegally denied to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the orders passed, denying the beneﬁt of past service to the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd October 2008 ajr