IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12587 OF 2011 Between: Syed Muzamil ..... Petitioner AND APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad & 2 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12587 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two (2) years which shall have its effect on the petitioner’s future increments, besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for all purposes through proceedings No.02/95(7)/04-IBPM, dated 30.07.2995, as confirmed by the second respondent in his Proceedings No.PA/20(238)/06-HCR, dated 30.11.2006, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments along with its arrears duly treating the suspension period as on duty with wages. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in respondent Corporation. He was charge sheeted for not issuing tickets to five individual passengers and a batch of four passengers. Challenging the charge memo, dated 11.04.2004, the petitioner had given explanation stating that the passengers were reluctant to pay the fare on the ground that they have no money to purchase the ticket except the money which was sufficient to their destination in another bus and therefore, the question of not issuing the tickets does not arise. After conducting enquiry, respondent No.3 removed the petitioner from service vide Proceedings No. PA/20(238)/06-HCR, dated 30.11.2006. On appeal, the proceedings, dated 30.11.2006, was modified by respondent No.3 as reinstatement into service by imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and treating the period between removal and the date of reinstatement into service as not on duty for the purpose of leave and wages. In revision, the same was confirmed by respondent No.2. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the earliest point of time, the petitioner had taken a defence that he did not collect the ticket amount from the passengers and therefore, the question of not issuing the ticket does not arise; and that this aspect of the case has not been considered by the respondents. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that at the time of spot checking the passengers had given a categorical statement that they have boarded the bus hoping that it goes to Akilamailaram and therefore, the appellate authority as well as the Revisional authority has taken into consideration that aspect and imposed punishment against the petitioner, which needs no interference by this Court as the punishment imposed by the appellate authority is in consonance with the proved misconduct. 5. The charge levelled against the petitioner is that he has not issued tickets to 9 passengers. No doubt, at the earliest point of time, the passengers stated that they have boarded the bus hoping that it goes to Akulamailaram, whereas the bus was proceedings to the Ibrahimpatnam and so, the petitioner failed to issue tickets to them. That aspect of the case has been considered by the disciplinary authority who found the petitioner guilty and ordered for removal from service. That order has been modified by the appellate authority stating that though the petitioner failed to issue the tickets, taking into consideration his previous service and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner and ordered reinstatement into service. The observations of the appellate authority would clearly go to show that the petitioner did not issue tickets to 9 passengers. Though there is inaction on the part of the petitioner in not issuing the tickets, or that he was found guilty of misconduct for any other charges except the present one. The punishment or penalty to be imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Although the choice and quantum of punishment is within the discretion of the authorities, yet it must suit the offence and it should not be unduly harsh. Considering these aspects, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect will be having a serious monetary repercussion through out the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the punishment can be modified with that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any other monetary benefits by virtue of this order. 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 9th June, 2011. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.12587 OF 2011 9th June, 2011 KL