N.Ramulu vs Depot Manager, APSRTC

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deferment of petitioner’s annual grade increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, which shall have effect on his future increments, treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’, as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable by setting aside the final order No. 02/95(57)/2004-MLG, dated 06.01.2005 passed by respondent No.1.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a "Conductor" in the respondents Corporation. While he was performing his duties at Mirylaguda bus depot on 30.08.2004 en route Dachepally– Miryalguda on bus bearing No.AP 24 U 4569 conducted by the petitioner near Gamalapadu Stage No.9 and observed certain serious cash and ticket irregularities committed by the petitioner. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 17.09.2004 along with suspension order were issued and later a formal enquiry was conducted and final order No.02/95(57)/04-MLG, dated 06.01.2005 was passed by the 2nd respondent by imposing punishment of withholding of his annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the period of suspension is treated as ‘not on duty’.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Enquiry Officer without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, dated 26.09.2004 to the charge sheet, submitted the enquiry report dated 29.11.2004 stating that he has issued tickets to all the passengers boarded at Dachepally and started. Some passengers have stopped the bus in the en route, as there were less passengers in the bus he has stopped the bus and allowed them. While issuing tickets, he had given signal to the driver to stop the bus and as he was involved in issuing tickets, he has not observed that the bus reached Gamalapadu stage. Had the bus driver stopped the bus when he rang the bell, this negligible mistake would not have been occurred and the radius of distance between the boarding place of the passengers and the Gamaalapadu stage is very less and the passengers also delayed in paying the ticket fare. The three passengers, who boarded the bus at Dachepally individually to go to Miryalguda, have not paid the ticket fare to the conductor and did not purchase the tickets at Gamalapadu stage when the TTIs checked the bus, found that they were travelling without tickets and made them to pay Rs.16/-each to the conductor. Hence, the petitioner collected the requisite fare of Rs.8/- @ Rs.4/- each. There is no intention of misappropriation of any amounts on the part of the petitioner and have not caused any loss to the respondents’ Corporation exchequer. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent imposing punishment withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment though the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation or irregularity while discharging his lawful duties as Driver.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents-Corporation after following the due procedure contemplated under the Regulations and after conducting enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and upon considering the explanation of the petitioner as well as considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned order was passed on 29.11.2004; and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner had submitted his explanation dated 26.09.2004 to the charge sheet for the charge Nos.1 to 4 stating that he rang the bell to stop the bus to issue tickets, but the bus driver had not stopped the bus and came up to Gamalapadu stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the 1st respondent without considering the statements given by the passengers and without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, passed the impugned order solely basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer imposing punishment of withholding annual grade increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The respondents Corporation has failed to establish that the act of the petitioner was intentional in not issuing the tickets to the passengers and that he played a fraud to cause colossal financial loss to the respondents Corporation exchequer but it is a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent ought not to have imposed severe punishment, such as stoppage of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of services rendered by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order.

Subject to the above modification, the writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.