THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.24576 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). 2. The petitioner is working as Driver in the respondent – Corporation. While so, one G.Sriramul resident of Nandyal ﬁled complaint stating that the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.250/- in excess, in addition to the normal luggage fare from him while the petitioner was operating 13-45 hours on Nandyal- Srisailam service on 4.4.2004. Based on the complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by P.R.K.Reddy, T.I- 3/NDL and submitted his report dated 8.2.2004 holding that the petitioner demanded the excess amount and caused inconvenience to the traveling passengers besides tarnishing the image of the Corporation. Based on the material available on record, the petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 6.2.2004 and he was kept under suspension by the Depot Manager, Nandyal. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 8.2.2004 and not being satisﬁed with the said explanation, a detail enquiry was ordered. The enquiry oﬃcer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 27.3.2004 ﬁnding the petitioner guilty. Thereupon the Depot Manager, Nandyal issued show cause notice dated 23.4.2004 to the petitioner proposing to impose a penalty of withholding his annual increments for a period of two years having eﬀect of postponing future increments besides treating the period of suspension as not on day. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.4.2004 and not being satisﬁed with the same, the Depot Manager, Nandyal passed ﬁnal order dated 15.5.2005 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 3rd respondent – Divisional Manager, Nandyal Depot. By order dated 28.6.2004 the appeal was rejected. The petitioner preferred a review to the 2nd respondent – Regional Manager, Kurnool Region, Kurnool and by order dated 18.11.2004 while concurring with the ﬁnding of guilt recorded against the petitioner, by taking a lenient view, the punishment was modiﬁed to that of deferment of increment for a period of one year with cumulative eﬀect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition on the ground that there is no legally acceptable evidence on record and the enquiry oﬃcer did not examine the complainant who gave the complaint and without examining him, the enquiry oﬃcer has recorded perverse ﬁndings and hence the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer are vitiated with material irregularities and hence sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and grant him all the consequential benefits. 3. The respondent – Corporation ﬁled counter and stating that the charges against the petitioner are proved in the departmental enquiry and however the 2nd respondent in the review, by taking a lenient view imposed lesser punishment and the same does not warrant any interference. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no legally acceptable evidence on record and as the complainant who gave the complaint was not examined, the ﬁndings cannot be sustained. He submitted that non-examination of the complainant would amounts to not collecting suﬃcient evidence and on the basis of the insuﬃcient evidence, the respondent – Corporation is not justiﬁed in imposing the punishment on the petitioner and further the punishment imposed is also disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner and, therefore, sought to set aside the impugned order. In support of his contention, he also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. V. MAHSH KUMAR MISHRA[1]. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the misconduct of the petitioner was proved based on evidence and hence the same cannot be interfered with and further supporting the impugned order passed by the Corporation, sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The charges against the petitioner are as under: 1. For having demanded excess amount of Rs.250-00 in addition to the normal luggage fare and refused to board his luggage if the passenger fails to pay the excess luggage, while you were operating the service on route Nandyal-Srisailam 13-34 hours on 4.2.2004, which constitutes mis-conduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 2. For having tarnished the image of the corporation by demanding excess fare and by refusing to board the luggage if the passenger failed to pay the excess amount while you were/operating the service on route Nandyla-Srisailam 13-45 hours on 4.2.2004, which constitutes mis-conduct under Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963.” 7. The learned counsel has made available the copy of the enquiry report and the relevant documents. From the said documents, it could be seen that based on the complaint, initially a preliminary enquiry was conducted by one P.R.K. Reddy T.I.-3/NDL and he concluded that the petitioner demanded the excess amount of Rs.250/- from the complainant G.Sriramulu resident of Nandyal for boarding his luggage and thereby caused inconvenience and also tarnished the image of the Corporation. Based on the preliminary enquiry, the above charges were framed against the petitioner and a detailed enquiry was conducted. 8. During the detailed departmental enquiry, the enquiry oﬃcer recorded the statement of preliminary enquiry oﬃcer P.R.K. Reddy and G.S.Husain who is working as S.A.S.I. on Nandyal Depot and who was on duty during the relevant time and to whom the complainant reported about the demanding of the amount. Based on their evidence, the enquiry oﬃcer recorded ﬁnding of fact the driver had demanded an excess amount of Rs.250/- in addition to the normal luggage fare and refused to transport the luggage if the passenger failed to pay the excess amount on 4.2.2004 and accordingly held that the charge is proved. And further based on the evidence record that the driver had tarnished the image of the Corporation by demanding excess amount and also refused to transport the luggage of a passenger who has not paid the excess amount of Rs.250/- and accordingly held that the charge no.2 was also proved. Though the petitioner denied the charges, he could not prove the same. Therefore, the enquiry oﬃcer held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. 9. Coming to the contention of the petitioner that since the complainant is not examined, the ﬁndings are perverse is concerned, it is to be seen that the proceedings before the departmental enquiry cannot be compared with the criminal proceedings, where strict rules of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. In departmental proceedings, preponderance of probabilities is suﬃcient to ﬁnd the misconduct of the delinquent. In the present case, the complaint against the petitioner is that he demanded excess amount of Rs.250/- for allowing the luggage of the petitioner and as the complainant did not pay the amount, the luggage was not allowed to be loaded. Immediately, as per the material on record, the complainant seems to have arranged other alternative. The evidence of G.S.Hussain who was working as SASI/Nandyal, throws light on this aspect. He stated that on 4.2.2004 he was performing duty at old bus stand Nandyal; that at about 16-00 hours he observed one jeep was stopped near lavatories in the old bus satiation and loading some small bags of luggage and hence he went to the jeep and asked about the loading of luggage; for that, the owner of luggage asked him whether he belongs to RTC and the reply being aﬃrmative, the complainant who is owner of the luggage, informed him that at 16-00 hous Nandyal- Srisailam service staﬀ have not allowed his luggage even through he had informed them that he will pay the luggage charges; that the passenger also told him that he wants to complaint the matter to Depot Manager, Nandyal and; that then he enquired about the Depot Manager and that the DM/NDL was in the C.I. oﬃcer. He also stated that he went to C.I. oﬃce along with that person and that the owner of the luggage complained the matter to DM/Nandyla. The facts are corroborating the contents in the complaint ﬁled by the complainant. Therefore, considering all these factors, the enquiry oﬃcer found the petitioner guilty. The circumstantial evidence, leads to the irresistible conclusion with regard to the misconduct of the petitioner. In these circumstances, non-examination of the complainant before the regular enquiry, will not vitiate the same and the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. Under the writ jurisdiction this court will not sit as an appellate authority over the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer in the departmental enquiry and recorded its own findings. If the ﬁndings recorded are perverse or are based on no evidence, then deﬁnitely this court will interfere with the same, under judicial review. Therefore, in order to see whether the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer are based on evidence, this court has undertaken the above exercise of re-examining the evidence on record. As the ﬁndings are based on evidence, the same cannot be interfered with in this writ petition. 11. Coming to the proportionality of the punishment, it is to be seen that the charges proved against the petitioner are with regard to demand of gratiﬁcation and tarnishing of the image of the Corporation. Though initially he was imposed with punishment of deferment of two increments with cumulative eﬀect, ultimately in the review, the 2 nd respondent by taking a lenient view modified the same to one increment. Therefore, in these circumstances, I am of the view that the punishment imposed is proportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- -- 05—08—2008 [1] (2000)3 SCC 450