IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23938 of 1999 Between: Madipalli Raju, S/o. Late Raja Ratnam, A.P.S.R.T.C., R/o. 45-1-63, Padavula Revu, Gunadala, Vijayawada-8, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (R) A.P.S.R.T.C. Vijayawada. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vijayawada. Krishna Dist., 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 call for the records and issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus set aside the charge sheet No.01/83(4)/97-VJA, dated 28.02.1998 of the 2nd respondent and the consequential order No.01/83(4)/97-VJA dated 30.5.1998 if the 3rd respondent and notified by 2nd respondent in proceedings No.Steno/19(163)98-Dy.CTM(R), dated 28-4-99 being illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of Natural Justice vague and untenable and consequently direct the respondents to extend all consequential service benefits to the petitioner and pass such order orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23938 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner, who is working as a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation attached to Vijayawada Depot in Krishna District, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada, the 3rd respondent herein, passed in proceedings No.01/83(4)97-VJA dated 30-05-1998 and also the order of the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent herein, passed in proceedings No.Steno/19(163)98-Dy.CTM(R), dated 28- 04-1999. The petitioner was on duty on 28-04-1996 as driver on a bus, which was plying on the route Hyderabad- Vijayawada (Vihangam service). On the ground that a complaint was filed by a passenger by name A. Bala Prasad, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet dated 28-02-1998 was issued by framing two charges, which read as under: “CHARGE-I: For having opened the middle door i.e. between the driver cabin and passengers of the Vihangam vehicle besides chit chatting with co-staff by allowing them to sit in the cabin unauthorisedly while driving the above Vihangam vehicle on 28-04-1996 on the route Hyderabad-Vijayawada, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28 of (ix) (a) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. CHARGE-II: For having tarnished the image of the Corporation in the eyes of traveling public due to your bad behaviour on 28-04-1996 while driving the Vihangam vehicle on the route Hyderabad-Vijayawada, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The petitioner filed an explanation dated 11-04-1998 in response to the charge-sheet dated 28-02-1998. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner has raised certain objections in his explanation. It is his case that the said charge-sheet was issued even without assessing the bus ticket number and time. He has also denied the very incident and the allegations, which are covered by the afore-mentioned two charges. Though the explanation filed by the petitioner is referred to in the 3rd reference of the order dated 30-05- 1998, but by recording a finding that such conduct of the petitioner has undermined the image of the Corporation, the respondents have passed the said order imposing the punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of two years, which shall not have any effect on the future increments. Though the petitioner has filed an appeal on 03-07-1998 against the order dated 30-05-1998 before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager(R), Vijayawada, the 2nd respondent herein, the appellate authority also concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority, but it modified the punishment confining such withholding of annual increment to only for a period of one year, instead of two years, as ordered by the disciplinary authority. This writ petition is filed in the year 1999, mainly on the ground that the order of punishment was passed, without recording valid reasons. It is stated that the very proceedings were initiated nearly after two years of lodging complaint against the petitioner. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. From a perusal of the order dated 30-05-1998, it is evident that no valid reasons are recorded in support of the charges framed against the petitioner covered by the charge-sheet dated 28-02-1998. Even as per the charge- sheet, the complaint is dated 28-04-1996 and the charge- sheet was issued very leisurely i.e. nearly after two years of lodging the complaint. In the absence of any counter- affidavit, it is not known as to why such abnormal delay has occasioned in initiating the proceedings inspite of such a written complaint. Although the explanation offered by the petitioner is referred to in the 3rd reference of the order dated 30-05-1998, no valid reasons are recorded on the charges leveled against the petitioner within the meaning of regulation 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. Referring to the explanation filed by the petitioner, merely on the ground that there was no reason for filing such a complaint against the petitioner, the impugned order dated 30-05-1998 was passed imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years. Even the appellate authority did not consider the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30-05- 1998, but it dealt with the appeal, by merely recording a finding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, beyond any reasonable doubt. When no evidence is referred to in support of the charges, which is evident from the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority mechanically rejected the appeal, by recording a finding that the charges were proved, beyond any reasonable doubt. Although the appellate authority has modified the punishment, confining the withholding of annual increment to one year only, but at the same time, there is no reason for not allowing the appeal in toto. From a perusal of the order dated 30-05-1998, this court is of the view that there was abnormal delay and latches on the part of the respondents-Management in initiating the proceedings even on such a complaint, which is of written in nature. The allegations are not serious against the petitioner and the said charges were denied by him by filing explanation. In the absence of any evidence, by merely recording a finding that there was no reason for filing such a complaint, the respondent authority ought not to have imposed any punishment. Even the averments of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are not controverted by the respondents by filing any counter-affidavit. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are fit to be set aside, and accordingly, the order of the Depot Manager, the 3rd respondent herein, passed in the proceedings No.01/83(4)97-VJA dated 30-05-1998 and also the order of the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent herein, passed in the proceedings No.Steno/19(163)98-Dy.CTM(R), dated 28-04-1999, are hereby set aside. If the punishment ordered is already implemented, the pay of the petitioner has to be refixed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order and all consequential steps shall be taken forthwith. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ________ 06.02.2009 CBS/VA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITOIN No.23938 of 1999 Date: 06.02.2009 CBS/VA