IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24025 of 1999 Between: Gunda Eswarayya S/o.Late Sri Papayya Paderu Depot, R/o.RR Venkatapuram, Pendurthi Mandal, Chinthala Agraham, Vishakapatnam- 530029 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gajuwaka,Vishakapatnam-530026. 2 The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, A.P.S.R.T.C, Vishakapatnam. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vishakapatnam. .....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 a Writ one in the nature 'MANDAMUS' declaring (1)the Proceedings No.STENO/19(24)/96-MED/Vsp, dt.22-0-.1997 of 2nd respondent to the extent of awarding punishment keeping my pay at the minimum of the scale for a period of two years (b) treating the period from the date of removal to the date of removal to the date of reinstatement as 'not on duty' for the purpose of leave and increment as illegal, arbitrary and costs of this Writ Petetion. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.SRINIVASA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 24025 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the appellate authority in departmental proceedings, to the extent which is adverse to him. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation with eﬀect from 04.01.1979, but however, subsequently, he was posted as a Cleaner on medical grounds with eﬀect from 27th February 1992. On 12th April 1996, a charge sheet was issued to him in the disciplinary proceedings and the charge framed against the petitioner reads as under : “It is found that you are caught by the Ch.R.G.Naidu, Security Guard, Gajuwaka Depot, who was performing duties, with Meals carriage in a bag along with ½ litre (nearing) Gear oil in old monk bottle at 4.29 hrs, after attending shift duties at 4.30 hrs on 11-4-96, on the bus AP 9 Z 7848, boarded by you, on route No.38B from garage. As such, it is found that you have committed serious theft. It is a misconduct under Reg.28(x) and (xxx) of APSRTC Service Regulations, 1963.” 3. When the petitioner has ﬁled his explanation denying the above charge, a regular inquiry was ordered by following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). 4. The inquiry oﬃcer has submitted the inquiry report dated 27th July 1996, in proceedings No.M1/227(1) 96-GWK. By discussing the oral and available documentary evidence on record, the inquiry oﬃcer has recorded a ﬁnding that the security personnel have failed to inform the case properly and they have also failed to gather proper information in support of the allegation of theft levelled against the petitioner. Even the spot explanation alleged to have been given by the petitioner, was also disbelieved by the inquiry officer. The operative portion of the inquiry report, dated 27th July 1996, reads as under : “From all the said factors and as per the circumstantial evidences the charge levelled against Sri G.Eswarayya, E.86252, Cleaner of Gajuwaka Depot stolen ½ litre Gear oil from the garage after spell of his duty on 1.4.96, in an Old Monk Bottle, is given beneﬁt of doubt due to lack of supportive evidences only.” 5. Inspite of the fact that there were no ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer in proof of the charge levelled against the petitioner, but surprisingly, a show cause notice was issued to him, and subsequently, an order of removal was passed by the 1st respondent- Depot Manager in proceedings No.M1/227(1)/96-GWK, dated 30th September 1996. 6. The petitioner has questioned the order of removal by way of departmental appeal before the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer. Though the appellate authority has rightly referred to the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer, but at the same time, through his order dated 22nd March 1997, has set aside the order of removal, and ordered for lesser punishment i.e. reinstatement into service by putting the petitioner at minimum of the scale for a period of two years. The appellate authority has further ordered that the period of absence of petitioner from duty from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave and increments. 7. In this writ petition, the impugned order is questioned mainly on the ground that inspite of the fact that no adverse ﬁndings are recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer in his report dated 27th July 1996, the order of removal was passed by the disciplinary authority and the same runs contrary to the Regulations. It is the case of the petitioner that asmuch as the charge framed against him is not proved, and in view of the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer, it is not open for the respondents to impose any punishment on him. It is submitted that asmuch as the ﬁndings of the inquiry oﬃcer have become ﬁnal, even the punishment as imposed by the appellate authority is not sustainable. 8. Though the counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, there is no speciﬁc explanation with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition. Except the narration of facts of initiation of inquiry and the orders passed by the authorities, there is no indication in the counter, mentioning the basis for imposing punishment on the petitioner, inspite of the fact that the inquiry oﬃcer has recorded ﬁndings in favour of the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. The disciplinary proceedings with regard to the employees of the Corporation are governed by Statutory Regulations titled as ‘Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967’. The said Regulations are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. Chapter 4 of the Regulations deals with discipline and penalties. Various penalties are enumerated in Regulation 8 of the Regulations. Upon a reading of Regulation 8 (1) (vii), it is clear that the penalty of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale whether within the same class of service or in another class as classiﬁed under this Regulation, can be imposed only for good and suﬃcient reasons. Regulation 12 of the Regulations prescribes the procedure for imposing penalties. Under various clauses of this Regulation, it is laid down that the order of punishment can be imposed by the disciplinary authority only basing on the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiring authority. Upon a reading of sub-regulation (10) of Regulation 12, it is clear that it is obligatory on the part of the inquiring authority to prepare the inquiry report, setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. 11. In the instant case, the only charge framed against the petitioner is that he committed theft of ½ litre of gear oil while he was leaving from duty on 01.04.1996, which he was alleged to have carried in a liquor bottle. But however, when the said allegation was denied by the petitioner, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer, who has conducted a detailed inquiry, and ultimately, he has recorded a ﬁnding that the security personnel did not follow proper procedure in reporting the matter to the management with regard to the alleged theft charge levelled against the petitioner, and it is also recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer that the alleged spot statement recorded from the petitioner, is also not proved. From a perusal of the inquiry report, it is clear that there is no ﬁnding recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer to the eﬀect that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved so as to impose any penalty under Regulation 8 of the Regulations. It is also not in dispute in this case that after the inquiring authority has recorded its ﬁndings on the charge levelled against the petitioner, there were no proceedings by the disciplinary authority, deferring with the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiring authority. It is well settled legal position that while it is open for the disciplinary authority to defer with the ﬁndings of the inquiring authority, but however, in such an event, it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to record reasons for the same. In this case, inspite of the fact that no such steps were taken by the disciplinary authority, the respondents have proceeded to impose the punishment pointing out certain deﬁciencies in the inquiry conducted by the inquiry oﬃcer, and ultimately, an order of removal was passed by the disciplinary authority. When appeal is preferred as provided in the Regulations, even the appellate authority has reiterated the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer to the eﬀect that the charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved. But, instead of setting aside the punishment as sought for, even the appellate authority, while setting aside the order of removal, has imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale for a period of two years. 12. The question, which arises for consideration is, whether the punishment as ordered by the appellate authority could be maintained, in view of the ﬁnality of the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer. Asmuch as the charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved, there is no reason to impose any punishment even by the appellate authority with reference to the charge framed against the petitioner. A reading of Regulations 8 and 12 makes it clear that unless the charges levelled against the delinquent/ employee are proved and ﬁndings are recorded by the inquiring authority in support of such charges, no punishment can be imposed by the disciplinary authority. In view of the language envisaged under Regulation 8 coupled with the procedure prescribed under Regulation 12 of the Regulations, in the absence of recording any ﬁndings by the inquiry oﬃcer in support of proof of the charge levelled against the petitioner, no punishment can be inﬂicted on him. When the ﬁndings of the inquiry oﬃcer have become ﬁnal, without any further steps for deferring with such ﬁndings, it is not open for the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment, merely by referring to certain deﬁciencies in the process of inquiry conducted by the inquiry oﬃcer. Therefore, in the instant case, even the lesser punishment as substituted by the appellate authority cannot be maintained, and the order of reduction in time scale as ordered by the appellate authority, is to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the appellate authority to the extent of imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale for a period of two years, is set aside. The petitioner is entitled for continuity of service and to all other attendant beneﬁts, including the arrears of salary for the period during which he was placed under suspension. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any arrears on account of salary from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement, and the said period shall be treated as ‘not on duty’. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner has to be re-ﬁxed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and pay the diﬀerence of wages, which are due to him on account of such re-ﬁxation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd October 2008 ajr