IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5226 of 2000 Between: T.K.Reddy S/o.T.Venkat Reddy, APSRTC Dharmavaram Depot Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager APSRTC, Dharmavaram Depot Anantapur. 2 Dy.Chief Traffic Manager APSRTC,Anantapur Region, Anantapur. 3 Regional Manager APSRTC, Anantapur Anantapur Dist. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.PA/28/48/RM-A dated 31-1-2000 issued by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal & Unconstitutional and set aside the same and further declare the action of the authorities in not conducting the enquiry as per the CCA Regulations and RTC Guidelines,1967 as arbitrary, illegal and against Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and issue consequential direction, directing the respondents to treat the period of suspension as on duty and grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.GANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner is working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and is attached to Dharmavaram Depot in Anantapur District. He has filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 31.01.2000, passed by the 3rd respondent-Regional Manager, in Proceedings No.PA/28/48/RM-A, confirming the orders of both the appellate and primary authorities imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect as a disciplinary measure. 2. On the ground that the petitioner has not followed the instructions of the Senior Traffic Inspector to perform two single trips on the route from Penakacherla to Kothapalli, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the charge sheet dated 22.05.1997 was issued by framing the following two charges :- “1. For having disobeyed the instructions of the Senior Traffic Inspector, Anantapur and Controller on 22.05.1997 informing to perform two single trips of Penakacherla – Kothapalli services to clear traffic on that route, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(viii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For your negligence in discharging of your duties by refusing to perform two single trips of Penakalacherla – Kothapalli service on 22.05.1997 when instructed by the Senior Traffic Inspector, Anantapur to clear the stranded passengers due to enroute failure of Penakalacherla – Kothapalli service, causing much inconvenience to the traveling public and scope for criticism to the traveling public which constitutes misconduct under Reg.(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 3. When the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the aforesaid charges, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer who conducted the inquiry, has submitted the inquiry report on 05.07.1997, in which, he has recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the same, the primary authority has imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment while issuing a show cause notice to show cause as to why the suspension period shall not be treated as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave, wages and increments. After the petitioner has filed his explanation, an order was also passed, treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ for the purposes of leave, wages and increments. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and thereafter, a review petition was also filed before the Regional Manager, who has confirmed the order of primary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. The Regional Manager, while disposing of the review petition, has also noted that on two earlier occasions also i.e. on 24.02.1996 and 13.07.1996, the appellant had committed disobedience to the orders of the superior officers in conducting the services. 4. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri M.Ganga Rao is that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The said contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the fact that by disobeying the order of the Senior Traffic Inspector, the petitioner has failed to clear the traffic on the said route. Though it is the case of the petitioner that in view of the animosity with the villagers of Kothapalli he could not accept the said instructions, but however, at the preliminary stage, he did not take such plea and during the inquiry proceedings also, he did not place on record any material in support of this defence. In view of the petitioner’s disobedience to the instructions of the concerned officer, there was not only inconvenience to the passengers on the route from Penakalacherla – Kothapalli, but also it must have resulted in monetary loss to the Corporation. The review authority has also noticed such conduct of the petitioner in detaining the services on two previous occasions on 24.02.1996 and 13.07.1996. Having regard to the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th January 2009. ajr