IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 22319 of 2000 Between: M A Swamy S/o Padma Raju, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Regional Manager, Rajamundry, E.G.District 3 A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Deputy C.T.M., Rajamundry, E.G.District .....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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ of Certiorari and quash the proceedings dt. 26/7/99 passed by 3rd Respondent in so far against to the petitioner after calling the records with consequential directions to the 3rd respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with full backwages and pay arrears and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 22319 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), has questioned the proceedings dated 26th July 1999, passed against him, by the appellate authority, conﬁrming the order of the primary authority, imposing punishment on the proven misconduct. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Casual Driver in Rajole Depot. Earlier, he was removed from service by an order dated 19th April 1989 on the alleged misconduct of negligence while driving the vehicle bearing No.AAZ-8954. Thereafter, ultimately, after conducting inquiry, an order of removal was passed against him, which was questioned by way of an industrial dispute in I.D.No.286 of 1989 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court has initially ordered reinstatement of the petitioner- workman with continuity of service, but without backwages. He was reinstated as Casual Driver at Amalapuram Depot by an order, dated 29th May 1991 and he had reported to duty on 04.06.1991. 3. After reinstatement, while he was in service, on the ground that he obtained a valid pakka permit for a private stage carriage for the vehicle bearing No.TML- 1426 to ply on the route from Indrapalem Bridge to GFCL North gate, Kakinada, another round of disciplinary proceedings were initiated. On the above said charge, an inquiry was conducted. On the ground that the said charge framed against the petitioner was proved in the departmental inquiry, the primary authority, by an order dated 25 th March 1999, ordered for removal of the petitioner from service with immediate eﬀect by treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the departmental appellate authority, and by impugned proceedings, dated 26 th July 1999, the appellate authority has ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. The appellate authority, while ordering reinstatement, directed not to treat the period of absence of the petitioner as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of wages, leave and increments, and the punishment was reduced from that of removal to reduction of pay upto two incremental stages, which will have the eﬀect of postponement of future increments. 4. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority ought not to have imposed reduction in pay upto two incremental stages, which will have eﬀect on future increments, and therefore, he seeks for modification of the punishment imposed. 5. In this case, it is to be seen that the petitioner- Driver was removed from service even in earlier round of disciplinary proceedings, but however, he was reinstated into service pursuant to the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal in an award passed in his favour. From the material on record, it is evident that even after reinstatement, he has further indulged in misconduct by running a private vehicle by obtaining permit, though he was an employee of the Corporation. In view of the proven misconduct, although the primary authority has ordered for removal of the petitioner from service, but however, the appellate authority had taken a lenient view and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner and substituted the punishment of removal from service to that of reduction of pay upto two incremental stages. Asmuch as a valid inquiry was conducted and punishment was imposed having regard to the nature of charge framed against the petitioner, the punishment imposed by the appellate authority cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Unless a glaring illegality is shown, this Court is normally slow in modifying the punishments that were imposed after conducting the domestic inquiry against the workmen. In view of the charge framed against the petitioner, I am of the view that the punishment, as substituted by the appellate authority, cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate, and therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th September 2008 ajr To 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rajamundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Deputy C.T.M., A.P.S.R.T.C., Rajamundry, East Godavari District.