T.S.S. Reddy vs Apsrtc, Mahaboobnagar Another

Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Thoom 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 vide proc.No.02/62 (107)/98-ACPT Achampet dated 30.08.1999 passed by respondent No.2, which was confirmed by the review authority vide Proc.No.LC1/ 785(160)/04-RM(MB), dated 11-11-2004.

The facts of the case in a narrow compass are that the petitioner was appointed as a "Conductor" in the respondents Corporation. While he was performing his duties at Achampet bus depot, on 17.09.1998 at about 19-15 hours en route Srisailam-Achampet, a check was conducted after passing Stage No.7, Farahabad some group of people boarded the bus on the way on sight of the TTIs, issued the tickets of Rs.3/- denomination to a batch of 23 passengers punching the tickets irregularly and accounting the sale proceeds ambiguously and failed to collect the requisite fare of Rs.3/- each and issued tickets to two passengers in a batch of 23 passengers, who boarded the bus after passing Farahabad and bound for Mannanur ex-stages 7 to 5 and the checking officials found certain ash and ticket irregularities and the petitioner failed to collect requisite ticket fare of Rs.3/- each and failed to issue tickets to them. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 10.10.1998 along with suspension orders were issued and later a formal enquiry was conducted and final order Proc.No.02/62 (107)/98-ACPT Achampet, dated 30.08.1999 was passed by the 2nd respondent 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 to the charge memo, submitted the enquiry report dated 16.11.1998. The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent imposing punishment withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment though the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation, and irregularity while discharging his lawful duties, as a Conductor. He further contended that review authority -1st respondent without considering the contentions of the review petition simply rejected the same.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent-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 30.08.1999; and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner filed review petition to the Regional Manager, Mahaboobnagar and the same was also rejected on 11-11-2004.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner had submitted his explanation and deposed before the Enquiry Officer to the charge sheet for the charge Nos.1 to 3 stating that on 17.09.1998 while he was conducting Srisailam Achampet bus service, after passing the stage No.7 Farahabad, a group of people raised their hands and boarded his bus. He had collected an amount of Rs.63/- at the rate of Rs.3/- and issued 21 ticekts of Rs.3/-. He indicated that till the check took place, he did not find the ticketless passengers. The TTIs made him to collect the requisite fare of Rs.3/- each from them and obtained TPT that he collected the fare from 21 passengers and issued them tickets as well as closed the ticket number as 110 shown in the issues colum of the S.R of the petitioner duly cutting off the figure which was shown as 389 in the relevant column. There is no loss of revenue to the respondent-Corporation exchequer. In the meanwhile, at Stage No.5 after passing Rarahabad checking officials stopped the bus and conducted checking of tickets in the bus and found certain cash and ticket irregularities from a batch of 23 passengers, who boarded the bus after passing Farahabad and bound for Manannur Ex-Stages 7 to 5. The Enquiry Officer has not considered explanation and evidence adduced by the petitioner and submitted his report on 16.11.1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the 2nd respondent without considering the explanation and evidence adduced 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 a batch of 23 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 2nd 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.