THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30831 of 1998 DATE: 13-9-2005 Between: P.Kamalakar Rao ……….. Petitioner And 1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Depot, Nizamabad and two others ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30831 of 1998 ORAL ORDER: The order of the reviewing authority dated 25-3-1997 confirming the order of the appellate authority dated 12-11-1991 which in turn confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15-6-1981 whereby the petitioner was imposed stoppage of one increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, is impugned in this writ petition. The charges levelled against the petitioner, as is clear from the proceedings of the Depot Manager dated 22-8-1980, are as under: “1. For having violated the rule of ‘Issue & Start’ 2. On sighting checking officials you have issued tickets bearing No.166/74785 of 0.50 ps. Den. To 15 passengers individuals batches and hand over to the passenger, who boarded your bus at Fathalapoor and bound for Bichkund ex-stages 28 to 26, from whom you have already collected the requisite fare of 0.50 ps. Each at their boarding point only. 3. For having obstructed the passengers not to give their statements 4. For having refused to attest on passengers statement and charge Memo issued by checking officials 5. For having interfered in the duties of checking officials 6. For your failure to close the S.R. of all deno. Against stage No.27 7. For apprehending the service driver not to sign on any of documents related to the checking” An explanation was sought for, enquiry was conducted and on a report being submitted that all the charges were proved, the petitioner was issued show cause notice on 30-4-1981 and on receipt of his explanation thereto on 11-6-1981, the order of punishment was imposed on 15-6-1981, that the annual increments of the petitioner, which next falls due, be deferred for a period of two years which shall have the effect of postponing future increments. Before this Court, Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.S.S.Siva Kesava, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the charges held proved. Learned counsel would submit that the inordinate delay of 10 years in disposing of the appeal and the review petition by another six years has resulted in the petitioner not being in a position to question the order of punishment earlier. This coupled with the fact that the writ petition is pending for seven years, has resulted in a situation where the petitioner, has been made to suffer the punishment for his entire career. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement and the punishment imposed would have the adverse effect of reducing his terminal benefits which he would otherwise be entitled to. Learned counsel would seek remand of the matter to the Revisional Authority for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner. It is well settled that the nature of punishment to be imposed on an employee is, normally, within the discretion of the employer concerned and this Court would not normally, exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in such cases nor would it substitute its views for that of the employer and impose a punishment in substitution of the one which has been imposed by the employer, except in cases where punishment imposed is one which could not have been imposed at all or is one which shocks the conscience of this Court. While the punishment imposed, in the context of the charges held proved against the petitioner, which does not include any charge of misappropriation of public funds, does seem harsh, it cannot however be said to be a punishment which shocks the conscience of this Court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is however necessary to observe that the statutory remedies of appeal and review require expeditious disposal by the authorities concerned to enable affected persons to invoke other remedies available to them in law including judicial review proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present case is a glaring example of the inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in disposing of the appeal 10 years after the original order of punishment was passed and in disposing of the review six years after disposal of the appeal. While the delay in disposing the appeal and review are without justification, this, however, would not alter the situation nor would it call for any interference with regards the punishment imposed. No order as to costs. _________ 13-9-205 asp