THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.9853 of 2000 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who was working as a Driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in its Depot at Adilabad District, is challenging the validity of the order dated 15-11- 1997 passed in proceedings No.01/2(2)/96-NRML by the second respondent imposing the penalty of reduction of the pay by two increment stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect and as confirmed by the appellate authority vide it’s order dated 26-02-1998 passed in proceedings No.Steno/19(1)-98-Dy.CTM:ADB. 2. On 29-01-1996, the petitioner was on duty as a Driver on the bus bearing No.AEZ 5148 on the route from Nizamabad to Adilabad. When the bus was being plied between Mavala-Seetagondi on the aforesaid route, it met with an accident by dashing a lorry, which was going in front of the bus. Attributing negligence on the part of the petitioner, on account of the said accident, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the petitioner was issued charge sheet dated 19-03- 1996. The charge as framed against the petitioner reads as under: “CHARGE : For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ 5148 rash and negligently by running close to the front vehicle in high speed with lack of anticipation and non-adhering to traffic rules as a result of which the vehicle met with an accident with a private lorry No.AEK 6579 at about 11.20 hours between Mavala- Seetagondi on route NZB-ADB on 29-01-1996 causing above damages to the vehicle besides injuries to the passengers which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulations 28 (ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. The petitioner has filed his explanation denying the charge leveled against him. In his explanation, it was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that he was not at fault and the driver of the lorry, which was going in front of the bus, has stopped the vehicle without any signal and as the road was narrow and congested, in spite of his best efforts, the accident occurred. Though, the petitioner has denied the charge, no further enquiry was conducted, but further show cause notice dated 15- 02-1997 was issued to show cause as to why the penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages should not be ordered. For the aforesaid show cause notice also the petitioner filed his explanation on 25-07-1997. In spite of the same, the order dated 15-11- 1997 was passed imposing the punishment for reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which shall have its effect on postponing his future increments. 4. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15-11-1997 before the Regional Manager, but the appellate authority also by further order dated 26-02-1998 passed in proceedings No.Steno/19(1)-98-Dy.CTM:ADB dismissed the appeal by merely stating that the driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 5. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 6. In this Writ Petition it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of denial of the charge by the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted and further show cause notice was issued for imposing the punishment. It is submitted that without recording any valid reasons, the disciplinary authority has passed order dated 15-11-1997 imposing the punishment for reduction of pay by two incremental stages. It is submitted the orders passed are in contravention of statutory regulations framed under Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel that out of sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner, accident occurred resulting in injuries to the passengers. It is submitted that the lorry was proceeding in front of the bus, in spite of the same, the driver, without anticipation, drove the vehicle and dashed to the lorry. It is submitted that, on account of an accident, there was damage to the vehicle, apart from injuries to the passengers. 8. With reference to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel, it is to be noticed that in the explanation to the charge sheet, the petitioner has filed a detailed explanation denying the charge. In his explanation, he strictly stated that the accident occurred only due to fault on the driver of the truck, but not the petitioner. It was his case that the road was narrow and the driver of the truck, which was proceeding in front of the bus, stopped the truck suddenly without any signal. In spite of the denial of the charge, no further enquiry was conducted and even without recording any valid findings on the charge framed against the petitioner, a further show cause notice was issued for imposition of punishment. In spite of the fact that further explanation was also filed by the petitioner to the said show cause notice, impugned order dated 15- 11-1997 was passed without recording any reason with reference to explanation filed by the petitioner and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. On the appeal field by the petitioner, the appellate authority also did not consider with reference to explanation filed by the petitioner and simply confirmed the order of disciplinary authority by recording a finding that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 9. Even at the stage of arguments, it is not disputed by the learned standing counsel in this case that after filing of the explanation by the petitioner to the charge sheet, no regular enquiry is conducted. The disciplinary action against the employees of the Corporation are governed by the statutory regulations titled as APSRTC Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, framed under Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. As per the penalties classified under Regulation 8 of the Regulations, so far as reduction of pay is concerned, it is covered under Regulation 8 (1) (vii) of the Regulations. The procedure for imposing penalties is prescribed under Regulation 12 of the Regulations. As per the procedure contemplated under Regulation 12 of the Regulations, the order imposing the punishment of reduction in pay by two incremental stages can be ordered only after an enquiry has contemplated under Regulation 12 (3). In spite of such a mandatory procedure prescribed under the Regulations in this case and in spite of denial of charge by the petitioner, no enquiry is conducted. Even for imposition of minor penalties under Regulation 8 (1) (i) to (v) also it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to record reasons on the allegations of charge leveled against the petitioner with reference to explanation filed by him. In this case, no more enquiry is conducted and further no reasons have also been recorded as contemplated under Regulation 12 of the Regulations. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, imposing punishment, passed by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority are fit to be set aside for want of reasons and as they are passed contrary to procedure as contemplated under Regulation 12 of the Regulations. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15-11-1997 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with its effect on future increments and the order of the appellate authority dated 26-02-1998 confirming the order of the disciplinary authority are set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. At this stage, it is submitted that the petitioner is already retired from service. In view of the order passed by this Court setting aside the orders imposing punishments on the petitioner, the respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner and determine the monetary benefits, which he is entitled to, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and if any further amounts are payable to the petitioner, the same shall be paid within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 18th March, 2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9853 of 2000 Between: Sk.Ahmed, S/o. Shaik Ali, R/o. H.No. 16-4-75/388, Kasaba Street Nirmal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Adilabad Region, Rep by its Regional Manager, Adilabad. 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Depot Manager, Nirmal Depot, Adilabad. .....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 an order direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the penalty of reducing pay by two incremental stage for a period of two years vide proceedings No.01/02(2)/96-NRML dated 15.11.97 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust; (ii) declaring the proceedings dated 26.2.98 issued by Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Adilabad is illegal and unjust; and consequently set aside the same and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following :