THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.131 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Tally Clerk in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, the 1st respondent herein. His duty is to prepare gate passes for the vehicles that are loaded with material in the Port Trust. On 26.01.2001, he prepared a gate pass, for a vehicle, bearing No. AP 31 W 1991, certifying that it was loaded with 11 timber logs. That was in the third shift of the day. The vehicle, however, did not move out of the port trust. After one full day, when it was about to move, the security staff found that it was loaded with 12 logs. Taking this fact into account, the Traffic Manager of the Port Trust, the 3rd respondent herein, issued an article of charge against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation, on 09.03.2001, denying the charges. Domestic enquiry was held and taking the report, dated 15.06.2001 into account, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 14.05.2002, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay scale by three stages with cumulative effect, from 13.05.2002. An appeal filed by the petitioner to the 1st respondent was rejected on 20.06.2002. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client prepared the gate pass, after physically verifying the number of logs loaded in the vehicle, and on the next day, he was posted to other duties. He contends that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for whatever has transpired for about 24 hours between the issuance of pass and moving out of the vehicle. He submits that the 3rd respondent did not assign any reasons whatever for inflicting the punishment, which has the effect of reducing the emoluments of the petitioner through out his service. Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is responsible for issuing the gate pass and he did not explain as to how an extra log came to be loaded into the vehicle. The imputation against the petitioner was that though he certified that 11 logs were loaded into the vehicle, on 26.01.2001, an extra log was found in it, when it was moving out, on 27.01.2001. The explanation submitted by the petitioner is cryptic and hardly did he advert to the relevant facts. He simply denied the allegation against him. An elaborate domestic enquiry was conducted. It is at that stage that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation by referring to various questions. The 3rd respondent passed the order imposing the punishment. A perusal of the same discloses that except making reference to the issuance of charge sheet, submission of explanation by the petitioner and filing of the report by the Enquiry Officer, he did not advert to any of the allegations and various facets thereof. The appellate authority has simply rejected the appeal without assigning any reasons. Had the extra log been found soon after the petitioner issued the gate pass, things would have been different altogether. He alone owed an explanation for such discrepancy. It is a matter of record that the extra log was found, when the verification took place 24 hours after the gate pass was issued. The detention of the vehicle even after the gate pass was issued itself gave scope for such discrepancies. The record is silent, as to whether the possibility for the log being loaded, after the issuance of the gate pass. In a way the petitioner also did not bestowed his attention to that. The punishment imposed against the petitioner is, in fact, very severe, when compared to the acts and omissions attributed to him. None of the respondents have endeavoured to know as to whether an effort was made by the employees, or the owners of the goods in loading the extra log, after the gate pass was issued. The petitioner also ought to have made some effort in that direction. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, this Court is of the view that the punishment of reduction of pay scale by three stages with cumulative effect can be modified to the one of reduction of pay scale by two stages without cumulative effect. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the punishment imposed against the petitioner is modified to the one of reduction of pay scale by two stages without cumulative effect. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.12.2010. GJ