IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6475 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Nazeer Ahmed, s/o. Late Mohd. Jaffer, PSRTC working presently at Achampet Depot, Mahaboobnagar District, R/o. Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District, presently residing at H.No. 2-2-302/5, Shahipur, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuing of final order No. 01/535(1)/2006-NGKL dated 29-12-2007 after a lapse of two years without conducting any enquiry and not providing any opportunity to the petitioner to appear in person and explain the facts happened during the period of his predecessor i.e., the than Depot Manager, Nagar Kurnool, who had issued charge sheet after a lapse of eight month from the date of vehicle was seized by the RTA authorities at Kurla Bus Station, Mumbai and issued Show cause Notice, without conducting any enquiry after a lapse of two years, when the petitioner was transferred and working under DM/Mahabubnagar and issuing the final order by the respondent after a lapse of two years four months when the petitioner on his transfer working under Depot Manager, Achampet, without conducting enquiry and without knowing the facts happened in the period of his predecessor, is as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice, by setting aside the final order dated 29-12-2007 and directing to the respondent not to recover of Rs. 56,520/- (Rupees Fifty Six Thousands Five Hundred and Twenty only) towards penalty imposed by the RTA Authorities, Kurla on Mumbai and estimated loss of five (5) days. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). When he was working in Nagarkurnool Depot of the Corporation, he cleared a bus bearing No. AP 11Z 4272 on the route from Nagarkurnool to Mumbai. The bus was checked by the officials of the Transport Department of the State of Maharastra at Kurla and on finding that the bus did not possess the valid permit, penalty of Rs.56,000/- was imposed. The respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 15.04.2006, directing the petitioner to explain as to why necessary action shall not be taken against him, which was followed by a show cause notice, dated 29.08.2007, pointing out that the petitioner failed to submit the explanation to the charge sheet and directing him to show cause as to why the amount shall not be recovered. Thereafter, a final order, dated 29.12.2007, was passed, directing recovery of Rs.26,520/- from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had approved a bus on a route, though no valid permit was issued for that vehicle. The final order discloses that the petitioner did not submit any explanation at all. The petitioner submits that he was working in a different place and though he submitted explanation, the same was not taken into account. A perusal of the charge sheet as well as the final order discloses that no allegation was made against the petitioner that he had cleared the bus with any ulterior motive or that the bus, which held the valid permit, was very much available in fit condition. The anxiety, if at all, on the part of the petitioner was only to ensure that service is not withheld on account of the approved bus not being available. Be that as it may, the recovery of the amount indicated in the final order from the petitioner cannot be sustained, unless any finding as to the deliberate omission or commission on his part, was recorded in the disciplinary proceedings. It is not as if the petitioner had utilized or misappropriated the amount and that the same ought to have been recovered from him. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the final order, dated 29.12.2007, is set aside. The respondent is directed to examine the matter afresh and it shall be open to the petitioner to submit his explanation, within a period of two (2) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ 31.03.2008 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o)9 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}