IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 21601 of 2000 Between: T.C.S.Reddy S/o.Narayana Reddy Marrigudem Post And Village Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager APSRTC Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda District 2 The Depot Manager APSRTC Nalgonda Depot Nalgonda District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of in his Proc.No. PA/19(16)/95RM:N dt.13-11-1995 in denyingt the continuity of servie and back-wages and imposing the deferment of increments with cumulative eﬀects for two years and treating the period from removal till the date of reinstatement Not to duty which is illegal, arbitrary and unjust, violative of Art,14,16&21 of Constitution of India, consequently , direct the Respondents to pay me the constinuity of service, and back-wages with all attendant beneﬁts and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.PRADEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings No.PA/19(16)/95-RM.N dated 13-11-1995 passed by the reviewing authority to the extent of not setting aside the order of removal from service passed against him by the disciplinary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. The petitioner, who was working as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation, while conducting the bus bearing No.AEZ 5452 on route Pylon to Nalgonda, at about 9.00 hours on 26-09-1993, a check was exercised at stage No.12/11 i.e. at stage Peddabaithanda and during the check it was detected that he failed to issue tickets to six passengers who boarded the bus at Kunkuduchettu and bound to Tirumalagiri despite collection of fare from them at the boarding point itself. With reference to the above, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him by framing the following charges. “Charge No.1: For having failed to observe the rule of ‘Issue & Start’ while performing the service on route Pylon-Nalgonda with vehicle No.AEZ 5452 on 26-09-93 which is misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963” Charge No.2: For having failed to issue the tickets to a batch of six passengers who boarded the bus at Kunkuduchettu and travelling to Tirumalagiri ex- stages 12 to 11 duly collecting requisite fare of Rs.1.50 per each at boarding point itself which is misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. Charge No.3: For having punched the tickets Nos.541/ 542620 to 625 of Rs.1.50 den. E.6 on the stages No.01 and 10 instead of 12 and 11 by seeking the TTIs in a hurry at Peddabavithanda village and given the tickets to the passengers who sat beside you which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” Dissatisﬁed with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, inquiry was proceeded with by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer, who after conducting inquiry, recorded the ﬁndings to the eﬀect that the charges framed against him are proved. Based on the inquiry report, after issuing the second show cause notice, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Depot Manager, Nalgonda, by his order dated 28-02-1994 removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner carried the matter by way of departmental appeal before the Senior Manager (Operations), Nalgonda Region, who by his order dated 08-02- 1995 dismissed the same. The petitioner further carried the matter by way of review before the Regional Manager, Nalgonda. However, the Regional Manager, Nalgonda, by the order impugned has modiﬁed the punishment of ‘removal from service’ awarded by the disciplinary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority to that of ‘stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative eﬀect’ and reinstated the petitioner into service and treated the period from the date of his removal from service to the date of reporting for duty as ‘not on duty’. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has not committed any ﬁnancial irregularity, his reinstatement was ordered without granting any other beneﬁts. It is further submitted that though the reviewing authority itself was of the view that the petitioner was in the process of issuing of tickets and inasmuch as the Statistical Return was not closed, no motive was established against him. In that view of the matter, the reviewing authority ought to have set aside the order of ‘removal from service’. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel for respondents that in the case on hand the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Though the reviewing authority interfered with the punishment imposed by the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority, there is a concurrent ﬁnding of fact with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner by all the three authorities and so there is nothing to interfere with the modified punishment imposed by the reviewing authority. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that even the inquiring oﬃcer has recorded the ﬁnding that all the three charges are proved. The ﬁrst charge is to the eﬀect that the petitioner failed to observe the rule of ‘Issue and Start’, which is a violation of conduct Regulations. With regard to second charge it is alleged that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to six passengers who boarded the bus even after collecting fare. Though in the process of inquiry the non-issuance of tickets to six passengers even after collection of fare by the petitioner was established, the reviewing authority, taking into account that three other persons, who boarded the bus along with the said six passengers, were issued tickets and the Statistical Return was not closed, has modiﬁed the punishment by granting substantial relief. Even with reference to the third charge, the punching was not done correctly, but however, it was recorded that upon seeing the inspecting oﬃcers the tickets issued to some passengers were wrongly punched. In view of the proven misconduct of the petitioner, stoppage of two increments with cumulative eﬀect and treating the period from the date of removal from service to the date of reporting for duty as ‘not on duty’ cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him. From the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, with reference to the past conduct of the petitioner, it is stated that for committing various cash and ticket irregularities on several occasions he was warned thrice, censured 6 times and his annual increment was deferred twice prior to the present misconduct. In that view of the matter also, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the reviewing authority to further modify the punishment. It is also to be noticed that the reviewing authority has passed orders as early as on 13-11-1995 and the petitioner has jointed the duty with reference to the said order and nearly ﬁve years thereafter this petition is ﬁled. In view of the unexplained delay and latches on the part of the petitioner also no relief can be granted. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J September 17, 2008 CVRK