THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Writ Petition No. 18488 of 2001 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings No.01/2(3)/78 NRML, dated 14.02.1979 issued by the then District Manager, proceedings No.27(31)/84/DVM NZB, dated 23.05.1985 issued by the Divisional Manager, Nizamabad and the proceedings No.Peshi/19(28)/99-RM, ADB, dated 25.01.2000 issued by the Regional Manager, Adilabad and consequently to direct the respondents to add the amount in the pay from Rs.290/- to Rs.260/- for a period of four years which shall have its future effects of increments and to add in the pay scale of the petitioner herein and pay back Rs.540/- which was debited from the salary of the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was working as Driver in the respondent-APSRTC and while he was performing duty and driving the bus bearing No.AP Z 6133 from Nirmal to Bhainsa via Boregaon and back from Bhainsa to Nirmal down journey and when he applied brakes it pulled to one side. According to the petitioner one mechanic by name Shaik Saleem was available at check point at Bhainsa and the said Saleem checked the bus and took the same for trial. During the trial, the bus bended to one side and was damaged. The following charges were framed against the petitioner. 1. “For allowing Shaik Saleem, E.36131, Helper Nirmal depot to drive the vehicle AP Z 6133 after attending to the defects” 2. “For having caused damages to the Corporation property (vehicle) due to lack of fore thought that the vehicle should not be given to unauthorized person without proper licence.” The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that since the only mechanic Shaik Saleem was available who is also an employee of APSRTC, he had handed over the bus to the said mechanic believing that he was a mechanic, but later he came to know that he was only a helper and not a mechanic. Initially, the petitioner was suspended from service and later the Depot Manager, APSRTC, passed orders dated 14.02.1979 imposing the punishment of reducing pay from Rs.290/- to Rs.260/- for a period of four years which shall have its effect on future increments besides debiting an amount of Rs.540/- being he cost of damages caused to the bus and also treated the period of suspension as not on duty. Learned counsel for the respondents-APSRTC submitted that the enquiry was conducted as per the procedure contemplated under the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations and adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment and the same is just and reasonable. It is also submitted that the appeal and review petitions filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the punishment awarded is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, Shaik Saleem was working as Helper in Nirmal depot. The contention of the petitioner that when he applied brakes, the bus pulled to one side and that there was no bus depot at Bhainsa and that only Shaik Saleem mechanic was available at the check point is not disputed by the respondents. When there is no bus depot and when only one helper was available and when the petitioner handed over the bus to such helper under the impression that he was a mechanic and when such helper after attending the repairs, was taking the bus for trial, resulting in a minor accident, it cannot be said that the petitioner had any mala fide intention in handing over the bus to such helper. The same cannot be treated as a grave misconduct. It is not the case of the respondents that the mechanic was available at the spot to attend the repairs of the bus. The punishment must be reasonable and should not be disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Even if the entire case of the respondents is believed, the only mistake seems to have been committed by the petitioner is in handing over the bus to a helper. In the above circumstances, it appears that the punishment is grossly disproportionate and in the interest of justice it is sufficient if stoppage of one increment for one year is ordered. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and all the impugned orders stands set aside. Consequently, the punishment awarded to the petitioner stands modified as stoppage of one increment of the petitioner for one year without cumulative effect. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 03.12.2010 Nsr