THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.25322 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings no.PA/19(68)/2002-SNG dated 24.1.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent – the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Sanathnagar Division, Hyderabad in inflicting the punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner, who is working as conductor in the respondent – Corporation, by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the period from the date of removal to the date of joining duty as ‘not on duty’ for all the purposes, as illegal and unjust, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner joined in the service of the respondent – Corporation as Conductor on 23.8.1986 and his services were regularized with effect from 26.12.1986. The petitioner was also awarded ‘best conductor’ awards on 15.8.1992, 15.8.2000 and 26.1.2001. While the petitioner was working under the control of the 3rd respondent – The Depot Manager, APSRTC, BHEL, Depot Hyderabad, he was issued charge sheet dated 14.3.2002, which reads as under: “For having mis-appropriated the ticket amount to a tune of Rs.1,288/- by sold out 56 tickets of Rs.23/- deno. From 001/814550 to 599 and 022/814440 to 4467, which constitutes misconduct” 4. The case of the petitioner is that he has submitted his detailed explanation, explaining the circumstances that he has not misappropriated the tickets amount as alleged. The tickets blocks supplied to him were kept in the tray of higher denomination in bundle shape duly tying with rubber bands. As on the date of duty, they were sold by him to the passengers and the same were handed over to the Department for account and remittance of bus cash. The tray box supplied to him did not have the lock system to ensure safety of tickets and he had not notice the above tickets till he was issued with the charge sheet. The ticket blocks were lost during the transaction of his duties. The Rs.6/- bock was found at the dust bin of Patancheru point and it was traced out by one of his colleagues and the same was shown to the C.I., who instructed him that he can sell the said tickets. The Rs.23/- denomination block of lose tickets 50 could not be traced out, as it was missing from the tray box. Due to poor visibility of light, he has closed the Rs.23/- denomination as 440 instead of 446. 5. His further case is that he has deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,288/- on 10.6.2003 and the same was acknowledged by the 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent, without consideration his explanation objectively, ordered for an enquiry and a stage managed enquiry was conducted, wherein he has denied reasonable opportunity to participate in the enquiry. Before the enquiry, he gave his statement and his statement remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. His further case is that he has categorically stated that Rs.23/- denomination ticket block and Rs.6/- denomination tickets were lost and that they were not sold out to any person and therefore, the allegation of misappropriation of the amount is absolutely misconceived. The enquiry officer submitted a report wherein he held that he has verified the ticket bock with the way bill and found that there was no alternation and further held that there was no evidence of remittance of bus cash short. There is also no evidence placed before the enquiry officer to substantiate the allegations and that he has misappropriated any amount of the respondent – corporation. The enquiry officer also held that the Assistant Depot clerk has misguided him and received the equipment, without proper verification of ticket block and further held that the Assistant Depot clerk is partially responsible. Though the petitioner brought these factors to the notice to the disciplinary authority, he imposed the punishment of removal from service and the appellate authority, who ordered for reinstatement, passed orders reducing his pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which will also have effect of his future increments. The grievance of the petitioner is that the punishment imposed will have effect on his terminal benefits. Hence, the writ petition. 6. The respondents filed counter and while supporting the action of the respondents, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The allegation on the petitioner is that he has mis-appropriated the ticket amount to a tune of Rs.1,288/- by sold out 56 tickets of Rs.23/- denomination from 001/814550 to 599 and 022/814440 to 446. The case of the petitioner is that the said denominations were lost and they were not sold out to any person and the entire amount was deposited on 10.6.2003 and the same was also acknowledged by the 3rd respondent and there is no misappropriation of the amount. In this regard it is necessary to note the penultimate portion in the report of the enquiry officer, which reads as under: “During the enquiry the undersigned verified the ticket bock denomination of 814550 way bill of Sri Bikshmiaha, and there is no any alternation and there is no any evidence of remittance of bus cash short on 4.3.2002. So the conductor has remitted the bus cash correctly for the day. The conductor has further stated that he has lost the ticket block bearing 814550 by him due to his negligence, and amounting Rs.1,150/- and the conductor which was shown in the way bill as 40 instead of 46 amount to Rs.138/- total Rs.1288/-. The duty of the conductor should have approached to the DM/BHEL Depot through CI/BHEL Depot for the loss of the tickets and amount to be remitted in the depot. The conductor has only stated that he has lost the tickets but the duty of conductor to remit the ticket amount as per the sale. The ADC of BHEL Depot who has mis-guided Conductor and received the equipment without properly verifying the ticket blocks of Sri Bikshmiaya, had ADC while received the tray should have ensured and rectify the mistakes arrived out by the conductor. The ADC is partially held responsible while taking the equipment from the conductor. And duty of the conductor to ensure the account of money due to Corporation to be remitted after spell of duties. Thus the charge is proved.” 8. From the above report of the enquiry officer it is clear that the he has verified the ticket block with the way bill and found that there was no alteration and further there is no evidence of remittance of shortage of bus cash. Therefore, from this finding it has to be held that the main charge of misappropriation is not proved against the petitioner. The above report further reveals that the Assistant Depot Clerk had misguided the petitioner and received the equipment without proper verification of ticket block and it was further held that Assistant Depot Clerk is partially responsible. On a consideration of overall facts and circumstances, though the charge against the petitioner is not proved, there is negligence on the part of the petitioner. 9. In these circumstances I am of the considered view that when the main charge of mis-appropriate has to be held is not proved, but without considering the evidence on record, the enquiry officer held that the charge is proved. Hence such a finding cannot be sustained. 10. Further, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has joined in the service on 23.8.1986 and had received ‘best conductor awards on three occasions on 15.8.1992, 158.2000 and 26.1.2001. In these circumstances, the condition no.2 in the impugned order needs to be interfered with, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, since the same will have effect on his terminal benefits. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the condition no.2 in the impugned proceedings no.PA/19(68)/2002-SNG dated 24.1.2003 of the Divisional Manager – 2nd respondent, is modified to the effect that the pay of the petitioner is reduced by two incremental stages for a period of two years and it will not have effect on his future increments. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ------------------------------------ 25—06—2010