IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.321 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/08/2008 in WP No.14943 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC Falaknuma Depot, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND Mohd. Moinuddin Khan S/o. Late Noor Mohd. Khan R/o. H.No.17-9-322/6, Waheed Colony, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent:MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ ble Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This appeal is filed against order, dated 20.08.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.14943 of 2008. The respondent in the writ petition is the appellant in this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The writ petition was filed by an Ex-Conductor of the appellant Corporation against order, dated 05.06.2008 passed by the appellant directing recovery of Rs.35,589.50 ps. from the writ petitioner. The said order came to be passed on the basis of three charges framed against the writ petitioner. The substance of the three charges is mentioned hereinbelow: 01. An amount of Rs.63,991/- worth tickets are missing from non-moving idle trays. 02. An amount of Rs.7,580/- towards special hire amount from the hirers to be recovered. 03. JET tickets wroth Rs.97,500/- to be destructed duly obtaining the sanction of competent authority. The disciplinary authority held that the writ petitioner was liable for payment of Rs.33,409/- towards the value of the balance tickets, which were not accounted for. The learned Single Judge held that in the absence of the charge or the finding that the writ petitioner has misused the tickets, which were not accounted for by him, and following the order of this Court in Ch.P.REDDY v. APSRTC, HYDERABAD[1], the appellant Corporation can recover the cost of stationery and printing instead of Rs.33,409/- representing the face value of the tickets. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that the ratio in Ch.P.Reddy (1 supra) cannot be applied in this case because the respondent – writ petitioner happened to be a Depot Clerk and not a Conductor. In our considered view, no distinction can be drawn between a Depot Clerk and a Conductor in respect of missing tickets, unless a specific charge is framed to the effect that the tickets were misused by the delinquent. A careful reading of the charge reveals that no such allegation is made against the respondent – writ petitioner. In our considered view, in the absence of misuse of tickets, there is no justification for the Corporation to recover the face value of the tickets. As the Corporation did not have the benefit of using the tickets, it is reasonable to permit it to recover the cost of stationery and printing charges. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the direction given by the learned Single Judge. As regards charge No.2, the Corporation does not dispute that the respondent-writ petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,180/- as directed by the learned Single Judge and with regard to charge No.3, the tickets were found physically available and the learned Standing Counsel does not dispute this aspect as well. For the above-mentioned reasons, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J 13th MARCH, 2009. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J kvni [1] 2000(5) ALD 93