IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15142 of 2008 Between: K.V.Chandrakala D/o. Subba Rao Zahirabad Bus Depot, Medak district, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Zahirabad Bus Depot, Medak District, A.P. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sangareddy Bus Depot, Medak district, A.P. .....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmaus declaring that the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of reduction of petitioner's pay scale by one incremental stage for a period of one year with all purposes as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate by setting aside the letter / order No.P2 / 462(1) / 2006-SRD, dt: 27.02.2007 of the 2nd respondent herein consequently directing the respondents to restore the increments and treating the suspending period as on duty for all purposes and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in Zahirabad Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. A show cause notice, dated 23.02.2007, was issued to her, proposing the punishment of reduction of pay by one incremental stage with cumulative effect, alleging that she suppressed the factum of her arrest on 21.08.2006. The petitioner submitted her explanation and on a consideration of the same, the second respondent passed an order, dated 27.02.2007, imposing the said punishment. The appeal presented by the petitioner before the Divisional Manager was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that reduction of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it could not have been imposed without conducting departmental enquiry. It is urged that she was detained only for one day and soon after release, she reported to duty and even before any communication could be made, the notice was issued. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the omission on the part of the petitioner to inform the factum of her arrest is a serious misconduct and no exception can be taken to the impugned order. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2006 and was released on the next day. The petitioner availed leave on 22.08.2006 and it was a weekly off for her on 23.08.2006. She reported to duty on 24.08.2006. It may be true that the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the respondents about the factum of arrest, obviously because of the humiliation she faced or the fear of further loss to her reputation. However, the respondents were under obligation to conduct a departmental enquiry, in case they intended to impose a major punishment in the form of reduction of pay with cumulative effect. Even in the impugned order, hardly any discussion, worth its name, was undertaken. Strictly speaking, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the reduction of pay is directed to be the one without cumulative effect. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the punishment imposed against the petitioner as the one of reduction of pay by one incremental stage without cumulative effect. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}