HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 21678 OF 2002 DATED 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN Reddi Appala Naidu ….Petitioner and The Executive Director (VJA & VZM), APSRTC, Hyderabad and ors Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 21678 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was working as a conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation, at Salur Depot, Salur, Vizianagaram District. While so, when the petitioner was conducting bus on 16.7.1994, it was found that he failed to issue ticket to a passenger who boarded the bus at Salur for Gajapathinagaram and failed to collect fare from the said passenger and closed the KSR accordingly. On the said charge, petitioner was issued with charge memo on the spot, to which, he had submitted his explanation. Dissatisfied with the said explanation, a charge sheet was issued to him on 23.7.1994. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted thereto, the fourth respondent, upon a careful consideration of the evidence available on record, imposed the punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent, who dismissed the same by order dated 30.08.2000 as time barred one. Thereafter, review petition and further appeal preferred by the petitioner before the second and first respondents ended in dismissal by orders dated 3.8.2001 and 13.2.2002 respectively. Hence this Writ Petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the punishment of deferment of one annual increment imposed against him is extreme in nature and grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charge proved and as such punishment imposed on the petitioner is unsustainable under law. It is his further case that without conducting due enquiry, the respondents imposed the punishment and therefore the same is hit by principles of natural justice. The respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the Writ Petition. It is stated in the counter that the disciplinary authority after perusing the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet together with the evidence on record, felt that there was no need to conduct further enquiry in as much as the petitioner had himself accepted the negligence and as such the respondent authorities took a lenient view in the matter while imposing the punishment. It is manifest from the record that as the petitioner himself admitted as to the negligence on his part in the explanation submitted pursuant to the charge sheet, the respondent felt that there was no need to conduct further enquiry in the matter and as such the fourth respondent has concluded the proceedings imposing the punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Needless to observe, an employee while performing his duties towards the APSRTC in a fiduciary capacity has to discharge his obligations to his employer with utmost good faith and diligence. Any failure on his part thereon would warrant suitable punishment. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 12th September, 2011. Msnro