IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7766 of 2008 Between: M.Sambasiva Rao S/o.Subbaiah E.384519 R/o.Kuglor Nursing Quaters Kothapeta Guntur Guntur Dist ... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C Rep.by its Regional Manager, APSRTC Guntur Region, Guntur, Guntur Dist 2 The APSRTC Rep.by its Depot Manager, APSRTC Bapatla Bus Depot, Guntur Dist ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings No.Steno/19(92)/04-RM-(G) Dt.13-10-2004 in so far period of Two years with cumulative effect and treating the period from the date of removal till reinstated into service as not duty is illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same by granting increments and treating the period from the date removal till he reinstates into service as duty and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.VEERASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as a driver in the Bapatla Depot of APSRTC. On 3.3.2004, he was driving the bus on the route from Bapatla to Pedanandipadu. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 11.5.2004, alleging that he did not stop the bus on the route, even though the villagers have raised/waved ahead their hands, and that he had misbehaved with the villagers of Cheruvu Jammulapalem, when they asked the reason for not stopping the bus. The petitioner submitted his explanation and a domestic enquiry was conducted. Through order dated 18.8.2004, the Depot Manager, the 2nd respondent herein, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Manager, Guntur, and the same was rejected on 10.9.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review before the Regional Manager, Guntur, the 1st respondent herein. Through his order dated 13.10.2004, the 1st respondent had set aside the order of removal and imposed punishment of reduction of pay, by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect. He also directed that the period between date of removal and date of reinstatement, shall be treated as not on duty, for leave and increments only. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Normally, the petitioner has to avail the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, by seeking reference to a Labour Court. That, however, is a cumbersome process, and the petitioner had to depend upon the espousal of the cost of a trade union. This court is of the view that if the impugned order is examined by this court, without the necessity of re-appreciating the evidence, the petitioner need not be subjected to the ordeal of approaching the trade union, for reference of the matter to Labour Court. Though two charges are framed against the petitioner, the cause for the same is that the petitioner did not stop the bus, when the villagers have waved their hands. It was not even alleged that the petitioner failed to stop the bus at a stage. In his explanation, the petitioner stated that the villagers waived the hands, just 100 yards away from the stage. Even assuming that there was any deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner, in not stopping the bus, it cannot constitute any dereliction of duty. If the bus is to be stopped, at every place whenever a passenger is noticed, not only the journey would be tedious, but also it would become uneconomical, apart from incurring the wrath of the passengers traveling in the bus. Be that as it may, the removal of the petitioner from service was totally unconscionable for the charge alleged against him. The 1st respondent himself realized the untenability of the punishment, and had set aside the order of removal. All the same, the alternative punishment imposed by the 1st respondent is also very harsh. Reduction of pay-scale, by two stages, for a period of two years, would have very serious effect upon the emoluments of the petitioner for the rest of his career. In addition to that, the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement, was directed to be treated as not on duty, for leave and increments. For a minor lapse, that too, which is not traceable to any rule, the petitioner cannot be subjected to such a harsh treatment. This court is of the view that the punishment of stoppage of one increment, for a period of two years, without cumulative effect, would meet the ends of justice. Further, the period between the date of removal and date of reinstatement shall be treated as ‘on duty’, but without any monetary benefit. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, modifying the order dated 13.10.2004, passed by the 1st respondent, to the extent that the punishment imposed against the petitioner shall be of stoppage of one increment for a period of two years, without cumulative effect, and that the period between date of removal and date of reinstatement shall be treated as ‘on duty’, but without any monetary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 10th April 2008 PAN