THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Thursday, 31st day of January,2008 W.P.No.18408 of 2006 Between:- Yepuri Satyanarayana … Petitioner and A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.18408 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with the Proceedings No.M1/114(3)/2004-RVP, dated 5-6-2006 of the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the 5th respondent vide Proceedings No.PAP/20(133)06- RM:E.G., dated 25-7-2006 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1978. Thereafter, he was promoted as Conductor. Further, he was promoted as Junior Assistant, Assistant Stores Keeper, Senior Assistant and Deputy Superintendent (Material). While working as Deputy Superintendent (Material) at APSRTC Bus Depot, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District, petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 20-1-2005 framing the following charge: “For having misappropriated an amount of Rs.200-00 + 50-00 = Rs.250/- towards purchase of bearing and fan respectively for 3 HP Motor by producing 3 bills including the bill of Rs.1,900/- for rewinding with local firm of Vijaya Lakshmi Rewinding Works, Ravulapalem and it is also confirmed that the ‘lowest quotation’ offered by Vijaya Lakshmi Rewinding Works, Ravulapalem is Rs.1,900/- including the replacement of bearing and fan of the 3 HP Motor which clearly shows the amount was misappropriated by you with a malafide intention which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963.” For the above charge sheet, petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, he was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner carried the matter in appeal. However, the appellate authority refused to interfere with the Order passed by the disciplinary authority and thus rejected the appeal. Therefore, the present Writ Petition. The sum and substance of the charge is that the petitioner had drawn an excess amount of Rs.250/- by claiming two additional bills for Rs.200/- and Rs.50/- showing the purchase of bearing and fan respectively. The owner of Vijaya Lakshmi Rewinding Works, Ravulapalem was examined in the domestic enquiry. He had categorically stated that he charged only Rs.1,900/- for rewinding motor including replacement of fan and bearing. Whereas, petitioner appears to have prepared bills for Rs.1,900/- as well as a separate bill for Rs.200/- for new bearing and Rs.50/- for new fan. The firm owner stated that the Stores Supervisor had insisted for two additional bills for Rs.250/- to sanction the original bill amount of Rs.1900/-. Thus, it was established that the petitioner had produced two false bills to draw an amount of Rs.250/- and as such, the charge is fully proved. However, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that earlier when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Depot Manager, petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.12029 of 2005 before this Court, which was allowed holding that the Depot Manager is not competent to issue show cause notice of removal. Thus, the Divisional Manager concerned was appointed as disciplinary authority and he conducted the enquiry. In fact, the appointment of the Divisional Manager as disciplinary authority was also challenged before this Court in W.P.No.16210 of 2005. However, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to look into the matter. Ultimately, the Divisional Manager-disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the enquiry report, the impugned Order of removal was passed, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, placed before this Court ‘Delegation of Powers-2005’ of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to show that the appointing authority for the Deputy Superintendent (Material) is the Senior Scale Officer and the disciplinary authority is the Junior Scale Officer. Thus, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the Divisional Manager could not have initiated disciplinary proceedings and concluded the same. Therefore, the question of lacking jurisdiction in passing the Order of removal as confirmed by the appellate authority does not arise. Be that as it may, petitioner had put in more than 30 years of long service and absolutely, the whole period was blameless and this fact is not in dispute. For a paltry sum of Rs.250/-, even if the charge is proved, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Respondents failed to consider 30 years of long and unblemish service of the petitioner while imposing punishment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct and as such, the same is liable to be modified. In a case of this nature, though the matter requires to be remitted back for reconsideration by the disciplinary authority, since it is brought to notice of this Court that the petitioner is aged about 56 years as of now, I am of the view that the litigation needs to be given a quietus. Thus, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned Orders are modified and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but without any back wages. Further, the respondents shall impose a punishment of stoppage of increments till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation. This order shall be given effect to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 31-01-2008 prk