THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.2165 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a driver in APSRTC on temporary basis on 02-01-1981. While so, on 13-07-1992, a complaint was made by another driver of APSRTC against the petitioner. Basing on which, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 21-12-1992, which reads as follows:- “For having assaulted and threatened to murder one Sri A.Shankaraiah, E.77703 Driver, Nalgonda Depot in the presence of Sri P.Goverdhan, E.78362, driver, Sri A.A.Abrar, E.73201, driver and Sri K.V.Reddy, E.67964, Conductor in the premises of DM’s office, Nalgonda while he was going out from DM’s office on 13-07-92 which is misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28 (xi & xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet and as the explanation was not convincing, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the charges, which was also communicated to the petitioner. In spite of several notices issued by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer conducted an ex-parte enquiry into the charges and submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority holding that the petitioner was found guilty of the above said charge. The disciplinary authority, basing on the enquiry report, issued a show-cause notice of dismissal from service, dated 22-03-1993, and sent the same to the petitioner along with a copy of enquiry officer’s report. The petitioner, having received the same on 05-04- 1993, failed to submit any explanation and, therefore, the petitioner was removed from service vide order of the 1st respondent, dated 19- 05-1993. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal and a review and the same were also dismissed. Questioning the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed I.D.No.105 of 1996 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, vide its impugned order, dated 31-08-2000, held that the misconduct committed by the petitioner is serious in nature, but the punishment imposed is severe and accordingly, modified the punishment directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages and imposing penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed contending that even the modified punishment imposed by the Tribunal is disproportionate and too harsh. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that MW.3 stated that earlier point of time, the petitioner and the complainant abused each other, but the punishment imposed is too shocking and severe. Further, the Tribunal having held that the act of the petitioner quarrelling with another employee constitutes serious misconduct, modified the punishment directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages and imposing penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is severe and the ends of justice would meet if punishment of ordering stoppage of four increments “with cumulative effect” is modified to that of “ without cumulative effect” and is accordingly modified, while upholding the order of the Tribunal in all other aspects. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 08-10-2010 Prv