THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.204 of 2010 DATED: 16-11-2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice) Heard both sides. Aggrieved by the order, dated 27-11-2009, in W.P.No.711 of 2001, whereby the order of the 1st respondent-Regional Manager to the extent of imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect, is modified to that of reduction of his pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The case of the appellant is that on 10-10-1998, while he was performing his duties at Imliban bus station, Hyderabad, as a Reservation Counter Clerk, one passenger by name T.Keshav lodged a complaint against him alleging that he abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him, and therefore he sought an enquiry as to the buses that would be stopping at Nakrekal village. It has resulted in an ultimate procedure of issuing notices and then after holding enquiry, the impugned order came to be passed. The case of the appellant is of total denial of abusing the passenger in filthy language, muchless an abuse. Further, even the alleged incident does not amount to such a serious altercation to warrant disciplinary action against the appellant herein. With these and several other contentions, the Writ Petition has been filed. A learned single Judge of this Court by going into all these aspects in detail and also the principles laid down in various citations submitted across the bar, allowed the Writ Petition as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. Having heard the learned counsel and also on perusing the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the action taken by the respondent-corporation and the subsequent imposition of punishment are valid and justified. There are no serious disputes in regard to the checkered events which led to the initiation of proceedings in the ultimate order of punishment. The main allegation is the abuse of the passenger by the appellant. This aspect was considered by the learned single Judge, especially as to the extent and scope of the expression ‘abuse’. The case of the appellant is that he neither abused nor he was rude with the passenger and therefore the imposition of punishment is fully illegal. However, the fact remains that there has been some altercation. Whatever may be the circumstances, the use of certain expression cannot be denied, otherwise the question of filing the complaint by a passenger does not arise. In total agreement with the ultimate finding and domestic enquiry, the learned single Judge drastically reduced the gravity of the punishment to that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect. On the face of it and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, deserving the allegation made against the appellant, we are of the view that this Court while exercising the powers under Clause (13) of the Letter Patent could not possibly go into the merits once again or make any re- appreciation of facts to come to a different conclusion. The scope of the appeal is very limited. However, having regard to the discretionary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not wish to further relax the quantum of punishment as rightly held by the learned single Judge. The punishment as imposed at this level is quite commensurate to the gravity of the nature of the allegation. Though an attempt is made on behalf of the appellant herein to show that there is absolutely no abuse, however, the fact remains that there has been a domestic enquiry and ultimately further remedies are of no avail when the learned Judge has gone into the same and gave an ultimate finding. In view of the same, we do not find any merits to warrant interference. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, we hold that the punishment, as modified by the learned single Judge, is sufficient enough to meet the ends of justice, reserving the gravity of the charge. It is needless to mention that the concerned authorities will look into the aspect of re-fixation of pay of the appellant etc., and make necessary exercise in that regard. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _____________________ V.SURI APPA RAO,J 16th November, 2010 Tsy