A. Rahman vs A.P.S.R.T.C.

The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the Order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings No.02/785(2)/ 2001-GDW1, dated 09.07.2004.

The petitioner submits that he joined into the service of the respondents-Corporation as “Junior Assistant” in the year 1972 and subsequently he was promoted as Superintendent. While things stood thus, the respondents-Corporation had issued a charge sheet on 14.08.2001 alleging that the petitioner failed to put up the accident case file pertaining to Devadanam, Driver, who was kept under suspension in accident case. Having failed to put up the case file of the said Devadanam, Driver who was under suspension in accident case, misplaced the said case file till 30.10.2000, which led to payment of subsisting allowances to a tune of Rs.53,187-97 paise and failed to put up the Contempt Case petition No.940 of 2001 filed by the said Devadanam for implementation of the orders in W.P. No.1073 of 2001.

2.1. He further submits that without giving an opportunity to him, the 3rd respondent-Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar passed impugned order, imposing punishment of reducing the pay by one incremental stage with cumulative effect and ordered for recovery of an amount of Rs.53,187-95 paise.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner passed the impugned order merely basing upon the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. He further contended that the respondent-Corporation failed to prove the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner by examining any witness. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, reducing the pay by one incremental stage with cumulative effect and also for recovery of an amount of Rs.53,187-95 paise is contrary to law. He also contended that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent had inflicted double punishment and the same is not permissible under law.

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation vehemently contended that due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the respondents-Corporation sustained huge financial loss and the respondents-Corporation is liable to pay an amount of Rs.53,187-95 paise to Devadanama, pursuant to the orders passed in W.P. No.1073 of 2001.

4.1 He further contended that the petitioner had not submitted explanation to the charge sheet dated 14.08.2001 within the stipulated time. The respondents-Corporation has given an opportunity to the petitioner and followed the entire procedure as contemplated under the TSRTC regulations and also appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer also has afforded reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case by following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer after conducting detailed enquiry submitted the enquiry report on 28.07.2003 and found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. The respondents-Corporation had issued show-cause notice by enclosing copy of the enquiry report as to why the punishment shall not be imposed against him. But the petitioner has failed to submit his explanation to the show cause notice.

4.2 He further contended that the 3rd respondent after perusing the entire evidence placed on record, passed the impugned order on 09.07.2004 imposing punishment of reducing one increment with cumulative effect and also for recovery of an amount of Rs.53,187-95 paise and there is no irregularity and illegality in the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less the relief sought in this writ petition.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, it is evident that the respondents-Corporation had issued the charge sheet on 14.08.2001 against the petitioner by framing the following charges:

Charge No.1

“For having failed to put up the accident case of Sri Devadanam, E.281307, Driver under suspension in accident case after receiving the case from CI € on 17.07.1998 and caused unreasonable delay in finalizing the case, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xix) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”.

Charge No.2

“For having failed to put up the accident case of Sri Devadanam, E.281307, Driver under suspension in accident case and misplaced the same till 30.10.2000, which lead to payment of subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.53,187-95 paise which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regs., 1963”.

Charge No.3

“For having failed to put up the undersigned the CC petition No.940/2001 filed by Sri Devadanam, against the implementation of orders in W.P. No.1073/2001 and the affidavit received from Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and the letter from CLO No. A2/785(111) 2001, dated 13-06-2001 and also PO: MBNR Lr.No.LCI/785(2)2001-RM MBNR, dated 15-06-2001 which were kept with you without bringing to the notice of the undersigned, which lead the undersigned to be present before Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in CC No.940/2001 which shows you negligence on duty, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations,1963”.

It appears from the record that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the above charges within the time frame stipulated. The respondents-Corporation has appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has afforded reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case by following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer after conducting detail enquiry submitted his report on 28.07.2003 holding that the petitioner is guilty of all the charges leveled against him. Thereafter the respondents-Corporation had issued show-cause notice to the petitioner by enclosing copy of the enquiry report as to why the punishment shall not be imposed against him.

The 3rd respondent passed the impugned order on 09.07.2004 imposing punishment of reducing one increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner and also for recovery of an amount of Rs.53,187-95 paise from him. The impugned punishment order passed by the 3rd respondent withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and also for recovery of amount of Rs. Rs.53,187-95 paise from the petitioner is disproportionate as to the gravity of charges framed against him and it amounts to double jeopardy.

In view of the foregoing reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside to the extent of recovery of an amount of Rs.53,187-95 paise from the petitioner. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 28.04.2004 granted interim stay in W.P.M.P. No.19411 of 2004 for recovery of the amount and the same is in force till date. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation submits that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner had retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the respondents-Corporation is directed to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner as per his entitlement, if not already paid, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

Subject to the above modification of the impugned order, the writ petition is partly allowed, without costs, directing the respondents-Corporation to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner, as directed hereinabove.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.