THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20809 of 2000 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner is a Driver working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation attached to Nizamabad Depot. On 03-06-1996, the petitioner was on duty on the route between Annaram and Nizamabad on the vehicle bearing No.AEZ-2006 and when the vehicle was proceeding from Annaram towards Nandipet, it met with an accident by dashing a bus belonged to Armoor Depot, which was coming in the opposite direction. With reference to the above said incident, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner attributing negligence on his part in driving the vehicle. The petitioner was charge sheeted by issuing a charge sheet. Charges framed against the petitioner read as under: “1. For having driven the bus No.AEZ-2006 in rash and negligent manner on route Annaram-Nizamabad on 03-06-1996, the said bus met with an accident near Nandipet while returning from Annaram with Armoor Depot bus No.AEZ-2234 by hitting it resulting 20 passengers of both the buses injured, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (ix-b) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. 2. For having driven the bus No.AEZ-2006 in high speed on route Annaram-Nizamabad on 03-06-1996 while returning from Annaram towards Nandipet, the said bus was met with an accident in collision with Armoor Depot bus No.AEZ-2234 at about 14.30 hours near Nandipet, which was coming from the opposite direction by hitting it, resulting heavy damages to both the buses, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (xxix) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulation, 1963.” 2. Petitioner filed his explanation to the said charges, but as the same was not satisfactory, the respondents have proceeded to conduct regular enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, who was appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner, submitted his report on 13-08-1996 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus No.AEZ-2006 by the petitioner and he is responsible for the accident. After closing the enquiry proceedings, the third respondent issued show cause notice dated 01-10-1996 asking as to why the penalty of reducing two incremental stages should not be ordered. The petitioner filed his explanation on 05-10-1996. But however, the respondents have passed the order dated 09-10-1996 by imposing penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which shall also have its effect on future increments. As against the said order of the primary authority dated 09- 10-1996 passed in Proceedings No.01/2(25)/96 – NZB, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nizamabad. The appellate authority, while confirming the findings recorded by the primary authority, however, by order dated 17- 03-1997 passed in Proceedings No.Steno/19(135)/96-DY.CTM:NZB modified the punishment to the following effect : “The punishment is modified to reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of two years which shall have its effect on his future increments.” 3. Though the petitioner carried the matter further by filing a Review Petition before the Regional Manager, Nizamabad, the Regional Manager declined to interfere with the modified punishment order of the second respondent in respect of reducing the pay by one incremental stage for a period of two years, but set aside the order for debiting of Rs.1,000/- towards damages by order dated 26-09-1997 vide proceedings No.Peshi/402(327)/97-RM-NZB. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The impugned orders are mainly questioned in the Writ Petition on the ground that the respondents have not furnished a copy of the enquiry report on conclusion of the enquiry. It is further submitted that show cause notice dated 01-10-1996 was issued without conveying the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite filing of a detailed explanation, dated 05-10-1996, without recording any reason in respect of the same, the major punishment is imposed. 5. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that though the petitioner has denied negligence on his part in driving the vehicle bearing No.AEZ-2006, but, based on the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer had come to conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in driving the bus, which was the cause for the accident. In the paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it is stated that though the petitioner was received the show cause notice, but failed to submit the explanation, as such final orders were passed. In the counter affidavit there is no denial of allegation of the petitioner that he was not furnished with a copy of the Enquiry Report. 6. There are separate set of Regulations framed under the Road Transport Corporation Act, titled as APSRTC Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, prescribing the procedure and the classification of punishments etc., in the said Regulations. As per the Regulation 8 (1) (vii) of the Regulations, the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay is a major punishment. Regulation 12 of the Regulations deals with the procedure for imposing penalties. Under Regulation 12 (3) of the Regulation, it is obligatory on the employer to supply a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent employee before passing final orders. In this case, though the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major one, he was not furnished a copy of the Enquiry Report. After conclusion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued without supplying the copy of the Enquiry Report; as such, it will be an empty formality to give such opportunity to the petitioner. Even in response to the show cause notice dated 01-10-1996, the petitioner has reiterated his stand that he was not negligent and accident occurred due to burst of front right side tyre. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that no explanation was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, but from a perusal of the impugned order dated 09-10-1996, a reference is made in the fourth reference. As much as the petitioner has denied the negligence on his part, imposing the punishment, without even supplying a copy of the Enquiry Report, caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner. Even in the final order, in spite of his explanation to the show cause notice, no independent reasons were recorded except stating that entire evidence is carefully considered. In the normal course this is a fit case to remit the matter for fresh consideration. Keeping in mind the fact that the final order in the disciplinary proceedings was passed more than 12 years back and to put a quietus to the litigation, ends of justice would be met by modifying the punishment of withholding increments without cumulative effect. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the punishment, as modified by the appellate authority, is modified as punishment of reduction of pay by one incremental stage without cumulative effect. The order of the appellate authority dated 17-03-1997 passed in proceedings No.Steno/19(135)/96-Dy-CTM : NZB and further order of the Regional Manager dated 26-09-1997 passed in proceedings No.Peshi/402(327)/97-RM-NZB stand modified to the extent indicated above. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the light of the direction referred to above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 27th February, 2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20809 of 2000 Between: B.N.Rao, S/o. Late Dharmaiah, R/o. 6-3-59, Pamlabasthi, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad. 2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Nizamabad, Nizamabad 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 call for the records from the respondents in respect of impugned Proc.No.Peshi/402(327)/97-RM-NZB, dated:26.9.1997 and issued an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the impugned order in so far as not setting aside the order of reducing the pay by one incremental stages for a period of two years as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of articles 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents corporation to remote the deferred increments along with consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following :