The High Court · 2025

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by he order dated 20.06.2OO7 passed by the 2"d responr ent' who conl-irmedtheorderdatedo2.Og'2OO5passecibythel.. respondent.

2. Heard Sri A. Thirupathi Reddy, learn:f counsel for the petitioner and Sri U' Shanthi Bhurharr Rao' Iearned standing counsel for TGSRTC'

3. The brief facts of the case are as follo'r s :- (a) The petitioner was working as a lonductor anclu,asattachedtot.Iredepotofthel"t.lsptlndent. On 15-3-2005, while the petitioner was pro<:' eding as a Conductor on bus bearing No'5660 on rout(' Siddipet to Vcmulawada, a check was exercised by tlr: checking ollicials at Stage No.9/10 at 11'15 aln' ar d issued a cl-rarge memo to the petitioner framing tv o r:harges' Thc petitioner submitted an explanation o the said 2 charge rnefiro. Not satisfied wiLh the expiation submitted by the petitioner, Respondent No. I issued suspension order and on the sarne day, issued charge-sheet dated 22.O3.2OO5 framing the following three (3) charges. 'CHARGE No.1: "For hauing faikd to obserue the rule "lssue and start" on 15-3-2005 while gou were conducting bus NO.5660 on tle tpute Vemulau.tada ot stage No.9/ 10 uthich a n stitutes to mis-conduct uide Regalation No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Ertployees (conduct) Regulations, 1963." CHARGENo.2: For twuing failed to isste tickets to two passengers uho are found alighting without tickets at Indiranagar (Stage No.9/ 1O) luho boarded gour bus at Sticilla near Katto euen-after allecting requisite fare of Rs.3/' each total Rs.6/- at the boarding point itself lrcnce obtained TPTs No.341/04O417 to 418 of Rs.3/- eoch tuhile Aou upre anducting with bus No.5660 on 15-3 2OO5 ort the route Siddipet - Vemulautada uhich corrstilutes to mis' anduct und.er Regulation No.28 (ui) (a) of APSRIC Emplogees (Contuct) Regalatio ns, 1 963. " CHARGE No.3: For hauing failed to cr-oryrote uith the cLecking oJficioLs ot the time of check and created nuisance ht front of trawlling passengers ond took lot of time to 3 / / uite Aour statement and to @unter- spn otr po.ssenger statement on 15-3-20O5 at stage No.9/ 1 tle route Siddipet-Vemulatuada uthile performing utith bus No.5660. u.thich con stittttes to mis-cor' under Regulations No.28(xuii) of APSRTC Emplt (conduct) Regulations, 1 963." )on (b) Respondent No.1 has conducted a : omestic enquiry and raised the suspension and dire r ted the petitioner to report before the Divisional l! anager, Sangareddy, lor further posting, vide order, dated O2.O).2OO5. At the sarne time, the 1"t rerl)ondent passed order dated O2.O9.2OOS deferr rrg the petitioner's annual increments for a period of 1r 'o years with cumulative ellect and treating the sus pension period as uot on rlutY. (c) Aggrieved by the order dated O2.(9-2OO5, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the I) visiona-l Manager, Medak Division and ttre sarne was rei :cted on

10.05.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed ,L review petition belore respondent No.2 and the same vas a-lso 4 re;ected on 20.06.2007. Challenging the order, dated 20.06.200Z, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned enquiring, submits that th Stage No.9/lO counsel appearing for the petitioner e checking officia.ls stopped the bus at at I l. 15 q.rr, arrd prevented the collecting the fare, and the concerned passengers petitioner from issuing tickets. clearly informed the checking officia_ls regarding their boarding point and his mtention to collect the fare, the threatened both the passengers and the a charge memo petitioner, and subsequenfly framed agarnst the petitioner. Although officials

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the alegation that the passengers boarded near the lake and paid Rs.3/_ each is false, fabricated, and contrary to the statements of the passengers. The checking officials tailed to record any co-passengers, statements. As the charges liamed against the petitioner were false and baseless, he 5 / /t protested while receiving the charge-memo' \I.l Len the petitioner attempted to submit spot expl mation voluntarily, the officials prevented him and eft the place. The charge memo contains only two :harges and that charge-sheet was issued framirLl i three charges Learned counsel appearing for the p :titroner 6. submits that though the petitioner st bmitted explanation denying the charges levelled agaL: rst him' the 1" respondent suspended the petitioner alll 1 issued charge-sheet to the Pet itioner' Learned counsel appearing for the tr etitioner 7. submits that the action respondent No'l in leferring the petitioner's annual increments for t\r' ) yea-rs' treating the suspension period as not on c uty vide proceedings dated O2'09'2OO5, without furn.r hing the relevant documents and without issuing a sh >w-cause notice is illegal, unjust, arbitrary' and in vi' rlation of CC&A Regulations of APSRTC' 5

8. karned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority erroneously confirmed the order passed by the l"t respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 2O.O6.2OO7 and allow the writ petition.

9. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The petitioner was working as a Conductor and was attached to the l"t respondent's Depot. On

15.03.2005, while he was performing duty on bus bearing No.566O on Siddipet-Vemulawada route, when a check was conducted at Stage No.9/10 at 11:15 a.m it was found that the petitioner had violated the rules and larled to issue tickets to two passengers, despite collecting Rs.3/- each as .fare. The petitioner refused to attest the passengers' statements and caused delay, resulting ln lnconvenlence. Therefore, the checking olhcials obtained the statement/attestation of the jeep / ( 7 f driver and submitted a special report to th Manager. The petitioner acknowledged tt r documents under protest without offering any I : Depot .check easorl. (b) Based on the irregularities enum( the charge memo, a special report was sub: rated in Litted bY s offered 1er has the checking officiats and the explanation wa from the petitioner and that the petiti: submitted his explanation' Not satished explanation submitted by the petitioner' ir enqulry was ordered. The Enqutry Ofircer f: -rnd that ) proved. the charges framed against the petitioner ar vith the detailed After reviewing the report, the Depot Manage:: dated 02.Og.2OO5, imposed the punis.t deferment of annual increments for two 'r cumulative effect. The punishment imposed respondent was proportionate to the miscon'l petitioner. Further, both the appellate arrtt ttre reviewing authority conhrmed the order by order ment of :ars with ry the 1"' rct of the ority and rassed by the 1"t resPondent' 8 (c) The checking offrcials detected the irregulariby of the petitioner and recorded passengers, statements, but the petitioner made delay in attesting the statements, which caused inconvenience to the checking officials. The claim of the petitioner with regard to heavy rush is denied, as the check report MTD 43/R No.2115610 shows that only 34 passengers, including two tickets less i.e., much below the seating capacity of tlle bus. The allegation of the petitioner that the checking oflicials fabricated a false case against him is incorrect and baseless.

10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the 1"t respondent considered each and every aspect and by taking a lenient view rightly imposed the punishment against the petitioner and the same was a_lso confrrmed by the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the sarne is liable to be dismissed. 1 - 9 This Court, having considered ttL' I rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view thir -' based on the cha-rges framed against the petitioner rnd the enqulry report, the 1"t respondent came to a cr'. tclusion and passed. the order dated 02'09'2005' imp'r sing the punishment of d.eferment of annual incremer ts for a period of two yearrs, which will have an effect : n future increments, besides treating the suspension 6 eriod as 'not on dutY'for all PurPoses'

11. The grievance of the petitioner is thal' issuing any show-cause notice, the entire prc were completed, and the imposition of tL punishment by the 1st respondent is illt arbitrary. Further, the appellate authority revisional authority erroneously conhrmed 1 without ceedings e above gal and and the he order passed by the -disciplinary authoritv without considering the contentions raised by him' \ 10 L2. In the counter affidavit also, there is no explanation with regard to the petitioner,s contention, and the respondents, without issuing any show_cause notice, proceeded with the enqury and passed the punishment order.

13. Though the petitioner,s actions indicate negligence while observing the rule issue and start on 15.03.2005, the authorities cannot impose punishment, without following the due procedure. Basing on the enquiry report only, without issuing any show-cause notice, the imposition of punishment cannot be sustained L4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.2i1O of 20O8, dated 2O.lO.2OlO. In the said case, a similar issue arose, where punishment was awarded without issuing a show-cause notice. This Court, in the said case, relied upon its earlier order in Kottapati Jagachandra Reddg U Depot Manager, F l I 11 APSRTC, Kadii Depot, Anantapur Districtl ' 'r herein a learned Judge of this Court while dealing wittL a'similar fact situation interfered with the punisr ment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effe t t on the ground that no show-cause notice was iss red with regard to the proposed punishment after conrl rct of the departmental enquiry'

15. In the case on hand also' without 1I; 'ulng any show-cause notice, the I"t respondent ilr'l rosed the above punishment' Before imposing prl rishment' proper enquiry is required' But' in the prr:;ent case' without conducting proper enquiry' the r:;pondents imposed the excessive punishment Ther:[ore' the punishment imposed by the respondent atL horities rs liable to be modified insofar as 'the defermen of annual increments for a period of two years' whicl will have effect on future increments', to that of purr shment of 'withholding two annual increment; without ' zoos (6) nLo zaz \ 12 cumulative effect. Insofar as treating the suspension period as'not on duty'for all purposes holds good.

16. Accordingly, the punishment of 'deferment of annual increments for a period of two years, which will have effect on future increments, besides treating the suspension period as 'not on duty' for all purposes', is modif,red to that ol punishment of 'withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect, besides treating ttre suspension period as 'not on dut5r'for all purposes. The authorities shall accordingly give effect to the modihed punishment, compute the petitioner's retirement benefits in accordance therewith.

17. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. so,-s. MALLIKARJUNA RAO AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 5 To SA BS The Depot Manager, A.P S R T.C , SiddiPet DeP The Regio nal Manager, A P S.R.T C , Sanga Red One CC to SRI A,THIRUP ATHI REDDY, Advocate {oPUCl One CC to SRI U.SHANTH IOPUC] Two CD Cooies i eHusHRtl RAo (sc FOR TGS RTC) Advocate District. egion, Medak District \0, t- i i I I ( HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 F ,s1HE SI4 ( C.) I I FFB }il7fi ) t * ORDER WP.No.24024 of 2009 DISPOSING OF THE W'P WTHOUT COSTS. 6