IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6952 of 1999 Between: S.V.Rao, S/o Lovaraju, E-58123 TTI.RES.Srikakulam, A.P.S.R.T.C., Depot, Vishskapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vishakapatnam. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vishakapatnam. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vishakapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders dt.20-1-98 passed by the 1st respondent, confirming the orders of 2nd respondent in his Proceedings No.Steno/19(19)/96-RM.VSP, as illegal, arbitrary adn set aside the same and consequently directing the respondent not to effect the reduction of payment to the petitioner for a period of minimum 2 years, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.6952 OF 1999 ORDER The petitioner, a Controller in the Office of the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. District Depot, Visakhapatnam, was subjected to disciplinary action on the charge that he had unauthorisedly driven the bus bearing No.APZ-9203 on 12.01.1983 without a valid driving licence and in the process caused a fatal accident as a result of which, not only was the vehicle damaged but injuries were caused to three passengers, one of whom died thereafter. After following the due procedure the Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam, by proceedings bearing No.02/2(1)/83-VSP dated 18.06.1991 imposed the punishment of reduction in his pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect and also ordered recovery of an amount of Rs.500/- towards half of the cost of damage caused to the vehicle. The period of suspension undergone by the petitioner was directed to be treated as ‘not on duty’. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said punishment resulted in the proceedings bearing No.Steno/27(59)/91-VSK(R) dated 05.01.1996 passed by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Visakhapatnam (Rural), A.P.S.R.T.C., whereby the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was modified to the extent of reducing his pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The Review Petition filed by the petitioner against the appellate order was rejected by the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakhapatnam, vide proceedings No.Steno/19(19)/96-RM.VSP dated 20.01.1998. The present writ petition is filed challenging the said order dated 20.01.1998 confirming the orders passed earlier. At the time of the hearing of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought the leave of the Court to raise additional grounds with regard to the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice in the course of the disciplinary proceedings and the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. However, it is observed that the petitioner did not raise these grounds before the authorities, be it the primary authority, the appellate authority or the reviewing authority. Further, no such grounds are raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. At this stage, after the lapse of ten years, it would not be proper to permit the petitioner to build up a new case without a pleading and evidence in support thereof. The learned counsel sought to place reliance upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in SYED YAKOOB v. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS[1] and SURYA DEV RAI v. RAM CHANDER RAI AND OTHERS[2]. However, these Judgments relate to exercise of certiorari jurisdiction whereas the petitioner in the present case is seeking a writ of mandamus. In that view of the matter, the said Judgments have no role to play in the present adjudication. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure to support his contention that the procedure provided in the said Code has no application to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This argument is advanced ignoring Rule 24 of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977 framed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which states to the effect that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to writ petitions and writ appeals insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977. Accordingly the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be squarely applicable to the present case and it would not be permissible for the petitioner to raise new grounds at the stage of final hearing which do not find reflection in the pleadings. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner necessarily has to be turned down, be it basing on Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or on the ground of laches. The only ground raised in the writ petition as it stands is that the criminal case registered against the petitioner with respect to this incident, being C.C.No.131 of 1983, resulted in his being acquitted at the appellate stage in Appeal No.66 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the light of the acquittal of the petitioner by the Criminal Court the order of punishment imposed upon him as a disciplinary measure by A.P.S.R.T.C. was not sustainable, being on the same facts. Per contra, the learned counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding was far higher than that required in disciplinary proceedings and in that view of the matter the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, basing on the proved misconduct, ought not to be interfered with. It is an established proposition that disciplinary proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal proceedings. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings cannot be imported into disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings are decided upon preponderance of probabilities and such findings cannot be disturbed by applying the strict standards applicable in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case does not have the effect of diluting the findings recorded against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any defect in the procedure in the course of the disciplinary proceedings warranting the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. _____ FEBRUARY, 2009. PGS / VGSR ( PD ) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.6952 OF 1999 ____________ FEBRUARY, 2009. [1] AIR 1964 SC 477 [2] AIR 2003 SC 3044