THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No :1162 of 2005 DATED 31-03-2010 Between: P.Satyam. … PETITIONER And The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & 3 others. ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the proceedings No.M1/E3/197(5)/02- DVM:KMM, dated 03-07-2003 as confirmed by the appellate authority by order No.Steno/19 (82) 2003- DVM:KMM, dated 27-08-2003 and the revisional authority order No.Steno/19(3)/2003-RM:KMM, dated 14-11-2003, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the order of recovery of amounts from the salary of the petitioner and pass such other orders. 2. It appears, the petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant in APSRTC and was attached to the APSRTC Bus Depot, Korutla at the relevant point of time. The APSRTC has been leasing out the commercial complexes, constructed in various bus stations, including Khammam bus station. The Regional Manager, APSRTC has issued tender notification inviting applications for leasing out the shops in commercial complex, Khammam bus station. Pursuant thereto, one S.D.Sirajuddin filed a tender and he was allotted shop No.6 at Commercial Complex for running readymade dresses, foot wear and travelling goods’ shop vide letter, dated 08-02-1999. Thereafter, an agreement was also entered into on 15-02-1999 granting lease to the said Sirajuddin for a period of three years i.e. from 01-03-1999 to 28-02-2002 to carry on the said business at shop No.6 and licence fee was fixed at Rs.4402/- per month. The said Sirajuddin was handed over with the shop No.6 and he has been doing business. That being so, since the said Sirajuddin fell in arrears his licence was terminated on 09-02-2000 and the Earnest Money Deposit was forfeited. However, the said order, dated 09-02-2000 was not given effect to and the said Sirajuddin was directed to pay the arrears and on paying the arrears he was allowed to continue the business. Again on 24-08-2000 another termination order was passed. This too, was not acted upon and the said Sirajuddin was directed to pay the arrears and he paid the arrears and continued the business upto 28-02-2002 i.e. till the date of expiry of the licence. Thereafter, the said Sirajuddin made an application for return of the Earnest Money Deposit amount. The file was processed by the Superintendent to the Depot Manager, and the Depot Manager made an endorsement to release the amount after thorough verification of the file. It appears, thereafter an amount of Rs.21,569/-, which was paid towards Earnest Money Deposit, was released in favour of the said Sirajuddin through cheque. Thereafter, petitioner was issued with a charge memo, dated 02-05- 2002 enumerating the following charges: 1. “For having concealed the facts of the orders passed by the Dy.CTM/Khammam in the letter No.E4/122(6)/99-RM:KMM, dated: 24-08-2000 about the forfeiting of Security Deposit of Sri Sirajuddin licencee of stall No.6 at Bus Station Complex, Khammam, which amounts to mis-conduct in terms of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation No.28 (xxii) of 1963” 2. “For having refunded the balance of Security Deposit of Rs.21,569/- through cheque No.325814, dt: 11-04-2002 to Sri Sirajuddin, licencee of stall No.6 at Bus Station, Khammam, without receiving the clearance letter from the Divisional Manager, Khammam, which amounts to mis-conduct on your part in terms of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.No.28 (xxii) of 1963”. 3. “For having not maintained the case No.01/122(3)/99-KMM, properly and not given the folio Nos. and not noted the notings on the note file about the forfeiture of Security Deposit, which amounts to mis-conduct in terms of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.No.28 (xxii) of 1963”. 3. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. However, not being satisfied with the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry the petitioner was held to be guilty of the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report accordingly. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 03-07-2003 holding the petitioner guilty and also directed recovery of an amount of Rs.21,569/- in 48 equal monthly instalments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Khammam, and the Divisional Manager, Khammam confirmed the orders passed by the Depot Manager and dismissed the appeal by an order, dated 27-08-2003. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed further review before the Regional Manager. However, the said review was also dismissed on 14-11-2003. Therefore, the present Writ Petition. 4. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the fact that the termination of the licence held by Sirajuddin against shop No.6 at commercial complex, Khammam depot, dated 09-02-2000 was not acted upon and the second termination order passed on 24-08-2000 was also not given effect to. Once the termination order, dated 09-02-2000 was not acted upon and the petitioner was allowed to continue his business on payment of arrears and further even after 24-08-2000 the said order was not acted upon and he was allowed to continue his business on condition of payment of arrears till the lapse of the licence i.e., 28-02-2000, it cannot be said that the termination order, dated 09-02-2000 was in force and the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.21,569/- against the said Sirajuddin stands/holds good. 5. In fact, from paragraph No.5 of the counter, it is seen that the petitioner himself had put up a note for the proposal to adjust the outstanding rents from the security deposit of the said Sirajuddin. Then the termination order was passed on 24-08-2000, but the Depot Manager himself instructed the petitioner to wait upto 30-08-2000. Thereafter, the licencee paid the amount of Rs.19,457/- towards licence fee from May, 2000 to August, 2000 and he was allowed to continue the business. Thus it must be deemed that the order, dated 24-08-2000 was not given effect to. Therefore, the question of converting the Earnest Money Deposit by the authorities does not arise. According to the respondents, the fact that there was forfeited order passed on 24-08-2000 was not brought to the notice of the Depot Manager and therefore after the lapse of the licence period on 28-02-2002, the Earnest Money Deposit amount was erroneously paid appears to be a misnomer. Even in the discussion of the Enquiry Officer, it is noted that the order, dated 09-02-2000 was exhibited on the notice board by the Junior Assistant. May be the same was not noted in the note file, but such proceedings were available in the current file. This might have happened for the reason that the said order was not given effect to and though the petitioner suggested that the arrears be recovered from the Earnest Money, he was asked to wait till 30-02-2000 during which period the said Sirajuddin- licencee paid the entire amount of arrears of Rs.19,457/. Further it is interesting to notice that on 24-08-2000 also a termination order was passed and that was also not acted upon and thereafter also the said Sirajuddin continued upto 28-04-2000 i.e. the expiry date of the licence and he did the business and paid rents properly and on the application made by the said Sirajuddin the mater was processed and the Earnest Money was returned. 6. Under those circumstances, petitioner could not have been made a scapegoat in the guise of suppressing the information or that he wantonly played a role in allowing the said Sirajuddin to draw the amount of Earnest Money of Rs.21,569/-. The whole episode is misconceived and none of the officers have appreciated the facts of the case and therefore the impugned order passed by the Depot Manager, as confirmed by the Divisional Manager and further confirmed by the Regional Manager, is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU,J 31st March, 2010. Tsy