IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18673 of 2008 Between: K.Laxmaiah @ Laxma Reddy S/o. Agaiah R/o. 11-365/, Barathnagar, Siddipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Siddipet, Distirct. Medak. .....RESPONDENT 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 Respondent herein issuing a writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the imposed the punishment of determent of annual increment for a period of two years which shall have eﬀect on future increment besides the suspension period from 14-11- 2003 to 30-1-2004 not treated on duty for all purposes by impugned proc. No. 0/95 ( 20/30-SDPT) dated: 30-1-2004 as arbitrary illegal, unjust, contrary to law without appreciation of facts and circumstances in proper perspective and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the punishment. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in Siddipet Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 18.10.2003, he was entrusted with the duty of conducting the service between Siddipet and Mumbai. A check was conducted at Stage No.23 and it was found that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to two passengers, who boarded at Siddipet and were destined to Mumbai. The passengers were issued tickets after collecting the fare as well as the ﬁne. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 14.11.2003. The explanation submitted by the petitioner on 21.11.2003 was found not satisfactory and an Enquiry Oﬃcer was appointed. The charges against the petitioner were found proved. Taking the same into account, the respondent passed an order, dated 30.01.2004, imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect and directing that the period of suspension shall be treated as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Divisional Manager. It is no doubt true that there was delay in the matter of pursuing the remedy. The order passed by the respondent discloses that the petitioner maintained a clean record and it was not even alleged that the petitioner had enriched himself with the revenues of the Corporation. For one reason or the other, the petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal. He can be permitted to avail the same at this stage also. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. In case it is presented within a period of four (4) weeks from today, it shall be entertained, without raising any objection as to the limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.08.2008. kdl