T. Gyaneshwar v. APSRTC

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned proc.No.Ptu20(321)/09-HR dated 19-01- 2010 in so far as deferring (2) increments with cumulative effect, treating the removal period as not on duty for all the purposes and not granting the consequential benefits of continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art.'14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents to restore the differed increments treat the out of service period as duty period for all purposes along with all consequential benefits in the interests of justice and fair play l.A. NO: 2 OF 20 10( WPMP. NO: 30262 OF 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to defer the tncrement for two years, which r;hall have its permanent effect by suspending the impugned Proc. No. PAl20(321)109-HR dated 19-01-2010 to that effect, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair Play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI C SUNILKUMAR REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER :t!e, 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.IESHWARA RAO trIRIT PETITION No.23643 of 2O10 OR.DER This writ petition is hled seeking the following relief: ' . . ... ...to issue an appropiate utit or . direction, more partianlarlg one in the nature of tttit of Certiorari, qtash impugned Proc.No.PA/ 2O(321)/ O9-HR, dated 19.O1.2O10 insofar as deferring ttt-to increments with cumulotiue effect, treating the remoual period as not on duty for oll the purposes and not granting the consequential benefits of continuitg of seruice, attendant benefits and bock uages as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in uiolation of Arts.14, 16 and 21 of tle Constitution of Indio and consequentlg the petitioners proy this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents to restore the dekned increments and treat the out cf seruice peiod as dutg peiod for oll purposes along with all anseEtential benefits......".

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the pelitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents'

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (i) The petitioner joined the service of the respondents Corporation as a Conductor on 07.03'199O under breadwinner scheme. Subsequently, his services were regularized' While I 2 the petitioner u,as conducting the bus service of the 3.a respondent on 08.06.2009 on route No. 1(l_J) Metro Express from Secr-rnderabad Station to Jiyaguda via Gandhi l{ospital, the checking officials checked his bus at Stage No.9/g i.e., Gandhi Hosprtal and issued the memo alleging as follows :- "1. You haue alread.y collected the requbite fare at tite boarding point and not issued. the tickets to (2) tuto passen.qers found alighting uithout tickets at Gand.hi Hospitrtl. stage No.9/ g, tuho board.ed ot Secltndrrabad" Station .stage No.9. 2. Y<nr haue issued the ticket Nos.777/773j90 and. 777/ 77.) 19 I of Rs.4/ deno. (E.2) to another passeng<:r bg sighting punch tuho is not relatecl taith the alighting passenqers. I'he passenger utas trauelling ht the bu:;. ConlTscttted the aboue tickets for reference.,, (ii) The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the above memo on 10.06.2009 stating that he had issued tickets to all the passengers including the passengers in questi()n and they might have thrown the said tickets on the footboafc steps while alighting from the bus. After checking the bus, the checking officials had followed in the bus Lrpto stage No. 1 i.e., Jiyaguda and framed the case, contrary to the facts after alighting a1i the passengers from the bus and issued the charge Memo. Not satisfred with the explanation submitted bv the 3 petitioner, the 3'o respondent had suspended the petitioner from service and issued charge-sheet framing the following charge:- "For hauing already collected the. requisite fare and at the boarding point itself and not issued the tickets to the tuto passengers found alighting uithout tickets at Gandhi Hospital, Stage No.9/ 8 uho boarded gour bus at Secunderabad Station and gou houe issued ticket No.777/ 773190 and 191 of Rs.4/ - denomination E2 tickets to another passenger bg sighting punch utho is not related uith the alighting passengers, uthich constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Emplog e e s (Conduct) R egulatio ns, 1 9 6 3. " (iii) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above charge on 18.06.20O9. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3'd respondent issued show canrse notice dated 3O.O7 .2OO9 proposing to impose the punishment of remova-l. The petitioner submitted explanation on 13.08.2009 stating that the very charge framed is not sustainable as he was charged under Reg'28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg- 1963 (for short 'the RegulationJ, which deals with issuing of used tickets to the passengers, and there is no allegation that he had issued the used tickets to passengers. However, the 3'd respondent, without considering \ + 4 the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has remc,vecl him from service vide proceedings dated 28.O8.2OO9. A.ggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authorit5' dismis,sed the appeal confirming the order of the 3.d respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 2"d respondent. The 2"d respondent while setting aside the order of the 3.1 respondent, passed the order dated 19.()1.2010, observing as lbllows :- "()n perasal of his seruice record. it is obserued that he tuas ctppointed as Casuctl Conductor in the gear 199(.t und he uas r<:quLarized in the gear 2OO3. The appellant conductor taas ttuicc tnuolued in cash and tickets irregulaities earlier also. Llorr.slrleing his seruice of 12 gears, nnd distance tra.uelled by ticket less passengers is onlg r/.- stage, t am inclined ta teke a lenient uieu based on benefit of doubt and on hurnanttrtian grounds and giuen him an opportunitA to continue itt seruice. Therefore, the orders of DM/ BKP ore set eside and the follotuittg r.trders are lssued: (i) The petitioner shall be reinstated into seruice os Conductor Gr.II dulg imposing the punishment of defennert of annual increment for a period. of TW,O YEARS uhich shall haue the effect of postponing his future rncrements. 5 (ti) The period from the date of remoual till date of his reporting for duty at the unit posted on reinstatement sholt be treated as "NOT ON DIJTY" for oll purposes uiz., PF, Gratuitg, Leaue, Incremen| Promotion, Senioritg etc.,

3. He should pay fresh secaitA deposit and produce ualid conductor licence and also produce "No dues certiftcate" from the Depot Manager, BKP depot. He should report to the Depot Manager Midhani Depot utithin seuen dags from the date of receipt of these proceedings, failing uhich the order of reinstatement stands cancelled." (iv) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order with regard to imposing of punishment of defermenta-l of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and treating the period of removal till reporting to duty as "not on duty"'

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the 2'd respondent passed the impugned order based on benefit of doubt and on humanitarian grounds' When the benefrt of doubt is taken into consideration, the 2nd I 6 respondent ought not to have passed the rmpugnt:d order imposing corrclitions as stated supra.

6. l,earnecl counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits thal Regulation 2S(xxiii) of the Regulations; is not applicable to the petitioner, as there is no question of re -issuing of tickets and even in the charge also, there is no me ntion of reissuance of tickets by the petitioner. But, simply stated that the petitioner issued trvo tickets of Rs.4/- denominatior i.e., E2 tickets to zrnother passenger by sighting punch, from which it is evident that rhe petitioner has not given re-issued tickets and only issued tickets. Further, the 3.4 respondent pas,sed the removal order against the Regulations. Therefore. passing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 by the 2"t1 resoondent imposing certair-r conditions is illegal and arbitrary

7. l,earnecl counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in the cor.rnter afhdavit, the respondents tLave not denied the contentions made by the petitioner.

8. In support of his contentions with regard to the br:nefit of doubt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relit:d upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAM LAL Vs. 7 STATEOFRAJASTHAMMOTHERSl'whereintheApex Court held as follows , Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "lanourablg adtrlitted", used in judgments dre not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of taw will not be carried auag bg the mere use of such terminology' In tlrc present cose' the Appellate Judge hrLs rearded thot Ert' P-3' the oiginal marksheet cafites the date of birth as 21 4-1972 ond the same has also been proued. bg the uitnesses examined on behalf of conclusion that tle acquittal in the the proseattion. The u.tas afier futt ansideration of the ciminal Proceeding proseantion euidence dnd thot the prosecution miseroblg failed to proue the charge can onlg be ariued at afier a reading of the judgment in its entiretg- The Court in judicioL reuietu is obliged to exomine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of exPression used.

29. We are satisfied that the fin'dings of tle Appellate Judge in the ciminol case clearlg indicate that the charge against the appellont uas not just' "not proued" in fact the cltarge euen stood "disproued" by tle uery proseattion euidence. As held bg this Court, a fact is said to be "disproued" when, afier consideing the matters before it' the court either belieues tLat it does not exist or ansiders its non exbtence so probable thot o pnld.ent man ought' under tle circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not eist. A fact is said to be "not proued" tulen it is neith'er " proued" nor " disProued. " In the above case, the Apex Court held that the g. expressions like "benefrt of doubt' and "honourably acquitted", 1 (2024) l SuPreme Court Cases 175 8 used in judgments are not ts !s understood a s magic lncarrtations. Though the aid of the expression "benefit of doubt" is taken rvith regard to the criminal case, in thr: instant case, with regard to the disciplinaqr proceedings, the r,:visional authority observed that a lenient view based on benefit of doubt and on humanitarian grounds were taken into considerirtion. In the instant case, once the revisional authority canre to a conclusion to take a lenient view based on the benefit c,f doubt and on humalitarian grounds, the revisiona_l authoritlr ought not to have passed the impugned order imposing con,litions. Therefore, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petrtion by setting the impugned order and allowing the writ petition. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents placed relialce on the following obserr.ation made by the 2it,t respondent under the impugned order. .In the spot explanation giuen in charge memo, the appellari conductor stated. that the bus was wtth 60 passenqers. He had giuen tickets to all passengers. DeIaA to giue tickets to the tuto passengers is d.ue to heaug speed of tlte bus as jl l.s metro express bus. He utas unable to giue that tickets and he thought that the 9 alighted- possengers were related to one trauelling ladg passengers. Hence he asked thnt ladg possenger to toke the tickets to hand ouer to that passengers' Due to rush a little late hnppened in issuing tickets. Since it tttas metro express anriued earlg to Gandhi Hospitol' In the speciol report, the TTls stated that theg found ttDo possengers olighting tuitlnut tickets at Gandhi Hospital, stage No.9/8 tttho boarded at Sec'bod, Stage No.9 from uhom the conductor had alreodg collected the requisite fare at boarding point itsetf and not issued tickets. The conductor seen them ttLho tt-tere exercising alighting checks. Hence, he hurriedlg sight punched tuo tickets No.777/ 773190 and 191 of Rs'4/ - denomination each tLUo tickets and honded ouer them to one of the possengers trouelling in the bus' When asked the olighting passengers about tickets, theg said thnt the Conductor had not giuen them tickets though theg paid the requisite fare. "Theg haue o,lso inquired the passenger' whether there taas ang relationship rttith the alighting possengers, to tuhom the conductor had handed ouer the tickets u,rhich ttere sight punched' The soid passenger to uhom the conductor had giuen tickets stated tLwt she d-oes not knout them". So theg haue taken statement of the co-passenger as taell as the statement of ticketless passengers uho hnue atighted lDithout tickets at Gandhi Hospital. In ttLe explanation to the charge memoJ the appellont conductor stated that tlrc allegations are contrary to the focts. His signature utas taken in force utitlnut oltowing him to read. He issued all tickets 10 correctlll irtcluding the alighting passengers in questicn. He issued ubout 32 tickets in betlueen stage No.9 to 9/ Stuhrclt distance can be couered within feto minutes. He had nor seen the TTIs and not sight punched the tickc'ts. 'l'he L;us utas carryinq about 6O possengers al the time of check. V'here as in the explanation to the charqe sheet the appellant slated that in his presence no person had giLen statemen t either in Hindi or English and theu u)ere not confronl ed to him."

11. Learned Stzrnding Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the version putforth by the petitioner at the hrst instarrce is ,:hanged in the explanation submitted by the petitioner to t he charge memo. So, two different versions are putforth bv t he petitioner and the salne cannot be a<--cepted. Further, In one place, the petitioner is saying 32 passengers though the tora-l number of passengers are 37 (35 + 2 FCt).

12. In the c()unter afhdavit a-lso, the respondents have submitted that they have also enquired the passenger, s,hether there was an1' relationship with the alighting passenfIers, to whom the conductor had handedover the tickets, whic:h were sight punched. The said passenger to whom the conductor has given tickets stated that she does not know them. They have ta-ken the statement of the co-passenger as well as the X 11 statement of ticket less passengers who have alighted without tickets at Gandhi Hospital' The revisional authority' after considering the evidence available on record and after hearing both sides, rightly passed the impugned ordei and there are no grounds to interfere with the same' Therefore' the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed'

13. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made the resPective Parties, is of the petitioner contended that the by the learned counsel for considered view that the respondents have wronglY framed charge under Regulation 2S(xxiii) of the Regulations ' The charge framed is for re-issue of in the charge framed bY the the tickets onlY, whereas respondents, nowhere they stated that the conductor re-issued tickets and also, at the same time' there is no mention of issuance of fresh tickets and simply stated that the petitioner issuedtickets.So,thereisanambiguityinframingofcharge itself and there is no clarity whether the petitioner re-issued tickets or fresh tickets' Further, the revisional authority has taken the aid and assistalce of the benefrt of doubt and on humanitarian grounds passed the impugrred order' Once the benefit of doubt is expressed by the revisiona'l authority' T2 imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of tr.vo years is not tenable. In the counter, though the respondents have stated with regard to recording of the explanation given by the co-passenger, they have not denied the contention made by the petitioner.

14. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner to treat the period from the date of removal till date of his reporting; to duty as 'on duty' calnot be considered for the reason that liom the date of remor al till the date of his reporting duty, the petitioner has not attended the duty and, therefore, the principie of ,no work, no pav' is applicable in this case. Further, being a responsible conductor, while issuing the tickets, the petitioner has to follou the Rules and Regulations of the Res.oondent Corporation in strict manner without any deviation of lhe said Rules ald Regulations.

15. In vieu. of the above observations, this Writ petition is partly allou,ed while setting aside the impugned order passed by the 2"d respondent insofar as it relates to imposing the punishment of deferment of arrnual increment for a pe,riod of two years, lr.hich shall have the effect of postponing future 13 increments, and the remaining portion of the irnpugned order holds good. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Witness THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY pAUL, Tuesday, The Fourth Day Of February Two Thousand And Twenty Five //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus B havan, CX The Regional ManageTAPSRTC, Hyderabad Region, M Hyderabad 1 2 3 The Depot Manager,4PSRTC, Bus Depot, Barkathpura, Hyderabad _4. ^The _D5rpot Manger APSRTC, Bus Depot, Ir,/idhani, Hydera6ad 5. One CC to Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri C. Sunilkumar Reddy(SC for TSSRTC) tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies Road, Hyderabad G.B.S Gowliguda, I To, TJ GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 ORDER WP.No.23643 ot 2010 tF: ?. ( J ST4r ( 2 4 i.P rt 2025 * ,l c I j i PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS //z /o,/4/f 4