High Court · 2025

lrrdia praying that in the :'f".T; i::::,:'::",,ii;S*f :;f itjilgrg#:f;:if ,;rui;f Li,ru'"r'itl',.'m[*n:r,i ji";.",i'tfl ".;;'ijj#1fu 6ry19:: ior.', p",,oo of two vears yn'"1:n:l ::f ;."ilf*"-J Lv tn" 1st Respondent 1,",i .[" in. re m ov a I pe n o d,?i r i"rlittl, Tl ,:3 S"r"..lfi :: ;i".l?ji" "tX: vide Froceedrns Io |Ti"'ro "id ,na zt ot the.Constitutron ::,]1t::;:"r"11,', rn violation ?t"r tn" ApSRIC C C. ano a Reg 1967, and "rpr,.,or.. contrary to Reg 8 grant all the consequentla ""9-li'Ol'"'"?*ln in" rnterest of justice: and fair ptay ,conse9uet Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V' NARASIMHA GOUD counser for the Respondents: sRr EA[1:1t1"tlJ'SI;iYr^- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.19642 OF 2006 ORDER: -l-l-ris r,r,rit pL'tilron is lllcd aggrievcd b-v the order dzrterl 24.03 2006 passccl bv thc 1sL respondent, who confirnred 1h<: ordr.r datecl 26. I I 2005 passed by the l.a responrkrnt

2. Hcard Sri \,'. Narsin-rh:r (loud. leat-nerl r:ounscl for the petitioncr.. and -Sri Par.rakanti Satish Kumar, lezrrned Stancling Counse I lirr T(iSRTC. appearing lor the respondents. Peruscd 1hc mzrterial ort recorcl

3. The bricf lacts of thc case arc as follou,s (a) T1-re petitior-rcr \\:as altpointed as a Concluctor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1987 and his services were regularized u,.e.l. O1.O7.1989. On 23.04.2005. while the petitioner was conducting a bus service between Miryalaguda and Suryapet, a surprise check was conducted at st.age No.7 and a memo was issued to the petitioner on the same day alleging as follows - "a passenger utho found trauelling from stage No.B and found alighting at stage No.7 uith ticket No.41O/21800 of Rs.3/ denomination, but the said ticlcet uas tot showrt accottrtled irz lhe SR and SR was conftscated." (b) The pctitioncr submittcd explanation to the said Memo. Not satisfied with the cxplanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3,,r respondent suspended him from service on 03.05.2005 and issued charge sheet same day alleging as lollows: "For hctuing closed tha S'l'A R No.022/ 383917, dt. 23.04.05 up to stage No.7 though tssued the ticket beaing No.4lO/2l8l0O of Rs.3/- detrc., to a passenger utho boarded the bus et stage No.B i.e., Gaidepollg and Portugode i.e.. stage No.7, utitltout accountaL of the satd ticket and also punched the stages on 8 & 6 instead of 8 to 7, tultich shorrs grr.rs-s negligerrc:e antl nisconduct on Uour part under Reg. 28(.r,rxt) of APSRTC Emplogees (conduct) Reg. 1963." (b) The petitioner submitted expianation to the said charge-sheet. Not satisfied with the said explanation, the respondents ordered an enquiry. The Enquiry Ofhcer, after conducting enquiry, held that the charge levelled against the petitioner \\ras proved. Based on the enquirv report. the 3'r respondent vide proceedings datecl 26.08.2005 irnposed thc punisLrment o[ removal from sr:rlict: ancl thiit the suspcnsion period tvas treated ers 'not or-r duty. . ,\ggrieved lhercbl', the petitioncr filed an appelrl bcftlrc lile 2"d resporldcnt, u'ho inturn rnod,ifit'd the rernor':r1 orcler clatecl 26 08'2005 passed by ll-rc J:ri rcsltondent ils rcduction of pal- bv turo incremental stagcs for a pcriod ol tu'o .]rcars' u'hich shall have t'umulertive clfect on his luLurc increments and that the periocl frorn the date of rcmoval ti1l he reports lor dut1' at ncwly posted depot is trcated as "Not ou Drrty' vide order, dated 26-ll.2OO5 Aggrieved the reby' the petitioner hled a review before the 1"' respondent and the same was re.lected on 24'O3'2006 Challenging the saici order, the prescnt rvrit petition is hlecl' Learned' counsel appearing lor the petrtloner 4. submits that there is nothing on rccord to altribute any ma-lafides on the part of the petitioner' The 3'd respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, errone ously passcd the 4 removal order, dated 26.08.2005. On appeal, the 2nd respondent without setting aside the removal order dated

26.O8.2OO5 in its entirety, modihed the removal order imposing thc punishment ol reduction of pay by two incremental stagcs lor a period of tu'o years, which shall have cumulative effect on his luturc increments. The period from the date of removal till he reports lor duty at newly posted depot is treated as "Not on Duty". On review, the 1., respondent. without considering the contentions advanced by thc pctitioner, erroneously rejected on 24.03.2006

5. Therefore, learned counscl appeartng for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by respondent Nos.i and 2 on 26.1 1.2005 and 24.03.2006, respectively, and allou, the writ petition

6. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that on 23.O4.2OO5, the petitioner issued a ticket from stage No.8 (Garidepally) to stage No.7 (Ponugode), but closed the SR at stage No.7 without accounting for the --a-7 ) said ticket. Ftrrther, the petitioner incorrer:tly punched thc stages :rs 8 ancl 6 instead of 8 and T Thercfore' a rnLrnro wils issuc:d to thc petitioncr, anri tr dctzriled domcstic enquiry u'as <-ortducted, in u'hiclr lhe cllarge \\'as founcl provecl. The petitioncr \v?ls accordingiy removccl lrom sen'ice on 26.08.2005 Or-r appeal, ths lnd respondet-rt took a lenient viert' llnct rernstatecl the pctilior-rer irtto scrvice, w'hile imposirrg a plrnishrnent o[ r-cch-rction of pay by two incremental stetges lor a peliod o[ two vears, which shall have cumulativc clfcct on his future increments and that the period lrom the date of rcmovrtl till ht: reports for duty at ncwly posted dcpot is treatecl as "Not on Duty" vide order clatcd 2t; 11 2005' A rt:vicu' petition w-as subsequentllr rejccted try the 1...' respot'rdcnt on 24.O3.2006. Aggricved thcreb"', the petitioner filed the present rvrit petition' 7 . Lcarned Standing Counsel appearing lor the respondents submits that the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was lawful and proportionate' and that the enqulry was conducted in accordance with the 6 principles of natural justice. The petitioner's explanation ol inadvertent error \vas duly considered, and the 3.d respondent rightly imposcd the punishment of removal from service. However, the appellate authorit-v by taking a lcnient view imposed lesser punishment and the same was a-lso confirmed by. the revicrving authority. Therelore, there are no merits in tire rt rit pctition and Ll-re same is liable to be dismissed

8. This Court, having considercd thc submissions made by the Iearned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that a perusal of the record goes to show, that the petitioner submitted explanation stating that due to dim roof light and clerical mistake, while closing the SR it was mentioned as '100' instead ol '10f in respcct of Rs.3/- denomination. The said explanation was not considered by the respondent authorities and imposed the exorbitant punishment i.e., removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was allowed on 26.1 1.2005 by observing as follows 1 'As lrr, hrr-s be'e-tt ntrtintainitg rnore or le.ss a cleart recorrl all tltrotqlt irls sert.,ice end taking itllo considerltion his frnnilrl ptrol etn-s arrd rrlso on hrLnanitaian grounds. I cttrt irtditt'cl to rlioe hirrt rt chance to serue t.he Corytorattott ttrt tltt, ltt1tr' tltut ht: tuill rtol repectt such tgpte of rtti.slakr'-s trt fttlur t, Tlterefore. the puriishrnettt order issued by the I),1.1/.sl?l"f is lrcreby trtodiftecl as "reductiort of pou blJ lLt,'o incrcrrtetttul stages for a peiod of tllo llears, tllttr:lt -sha/1 httr.,e cutrtulatlue e.ffect ort hts .fttfire itcrernent s. LIe-trct', ilu'rt1t1tc'al is ctllouted lo tlae extett disctssed aboue. 'l'h,' penod from the date of rertor.,al till he reltorls [or cirtt.tl at ncttDhJ posted depot is trectled a-s "NO7' ON DI iT\', . (.). Aggricvcd by thc s:rme, the petitioner [iled a rcvicw an(l tlre sarrle \\''as rejected on 24.O3.2006. Challengir-rg tl-re said rejeclion order, the petitioner fiied the prcsent \\'rrt ll('tr t 1()11

10. ,\ pcrusal of thc charge lramed against the petitioner' €Ioes to show that only one charge is fr:rmed against him stating that he had punched the stages 8 and 6 instead of B and 7. For the said mistake, the reasolls stated by the petitioner in his enquiry report is very much convincing that due to poor dim light, he did a rnistal(e and also he stated that it is onlv a clerical rnistal(c and with that mistake no financial Ioss occurred 8 to the respondent Corporation. In the said clrcumstances, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages lor a period ol two )rears, u,hich shall have cumulativc ellect on his future lncrements is very excessive and disproportionate. lf any financial loss occurred to the Corporation or iillv repeated mistakes occurred due to the negiigencc of thc petitior-rer, then the authorities can impose such major penalties But, in the present case, onll, one charge rr-as frarned against the petitioner by the respondent authorities. The mistake was occurred due to dim roof light ancl based on the track record of the petitioner, imposition of initial punishment of removal from servicc is high11. CXCCSSIVC Against the removal order, the petitioner filed an appcal and the appellate authority based on the track rccord of the petitioner, modihed the punishment and even that modified punishment is aiso disproportionate

11. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the clean track record of the petitioner ard since therc is no hnancial loss to the Corporation and that onlv one 9 charge is li:rmt:d against the petitioner :rnd as the punishment rnodilied by thc appeilate authority is disproportionatt:. this Court is inclined to modifl the purrishntctiI imposctl ll]' thc appellate authoritY i'e' for a period ''rccluctiotr of par- lrt' tu'o incremental sta€les ol tw-o vcerls, u'llit-h shall havc cumulative effect on his luturc: itrcr('merlts". to tl'rat ol "punishment of u'ithholding tu'o annn:tl itrcrcmt:t-tts. u'hich sha-ll not have effect on his luturc' itrcrctltcnts". The finding of the Tribunal treating thc pcriocl lrom thc datc of removal ti1l he reports for cluty irt neu'lv posterl depot as "Not on Duty" holds good' 1'2. With thc above modification, the writ petitron IS clisposr:rl of. No order as to costs })encling miscellaneous petitions, if any, sha1l stand c1o sed t- SD A A. SRINIVASA REDDY SISTEruT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To, Districl 1 The Regronal Manager' TSRTC ' Nalgonda' 2 The Divrsional ltilar-rager TSRTC, Suryapet Division,, Suryapet, Nalgonda 3 The Depot Manager' TSRTC' Bus Depot' Suryapet" lrlalgonda District' 4 One CC to Sri V Narasinrha Goud' Advocate [OPUC] 5 one ccto Sri panakanti satish Kumar (sc foTTGSRTC zoNE 111) [.PUC] C,dL - 6 Two CD CoPies TJ lls M HIGH COURT DATED:3011O12025 ORDER WP.No.19642 of 2006 11To( jl.i I -) c1 ?), * 3 l1AR 21126 * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )