IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3542 of 2000 Between: N.Rama Rao S/o.late Venkataramaiah H.NO.1-3-25-5-8/A Quarry Street, Vidyadharapuram Vijayawada -12 Krishna Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 UOI rep.by its Jt.Director Estt. (D&A), Railway Board, New Delhi 2 General Manager South Central Railway, Secunderabad 3 Senior Divisional Railway Manager South Central Railway, Vijayawada .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order/ orders or direction or writ of certiorari declaring the order Dt.28/01/2000 in OA.No.497/99 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench, Hyderabad as bad, illegal, arbitrary and as such please suspend the same and quash and set aside the impugned orders of disciplinary authority Lr.No.B/C CM/5/95, Dt.03/05/95 revision authority Lr.No.P.86/BZA/NRR/2002, Dt.2/7/97 and 12/11/1997 and Lr.No.E(D&A) Railway Board, New Delhi and further direct the respondents to pay the consequential beneﬁts of incremental arrears etc., in the interest of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.SANYASI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3542 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order made in O.A.No.497 of 1999 dated 28.1.2000 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, whereunder the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect was confirmed. It appears, petitioner while attending to his duties as Chief Ticket Inspector on Chennai to Vijayawada route, appears to have committed certain irregularities. Therefore he was issued with a charge sheet stating that he has collected excess fare of Rs.51/- from four diﬀerent passengers at Ongole. Petitioner in his explanation stated that he has to handover the excess amount at his destination point i.e. Vijayawada and in the meanwhile check was exercised by the Vigilance Inspector. It is his further contention that though he was ready to return the small change to passengers, he could not ﬁnd them due to non-availability of vestibule system. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative eﬀect. However, the appellate authority, suo-moto taken up the matter and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, enhanced the punishment to that of stoppage of three increments without cumulative eﬀect (non-recurring). Aggrieved by the same, petitioner ﬁled O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The Tribunal, after a detailed consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the misconduct committed by the petitioner was not for the ﬁrst time. He suﬀered such punishments earlier also and the same was taken into consideration while imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments. Therefore, dismissed the O.A. vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. It is not in dispute that stoppage of three increments was without cumulative eﬀect. Apart from that, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had not suﬀered punishments earlier. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2006. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that since the charges are grave in nature, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal or disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.7.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3542 of 2000 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) 29.7.2008