HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4676 of 2005 Date: June 23, 2010 Between:
R. Mallaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, aged 49 years, Hindu, Conductor (E.No.109004), APSRTC, Ranigunj I Depot, Secunderabad … Petitioner And The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad, and three others … Respondents Order:
The petitioner, a Conductor working in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and presently posted at Ranigunj Depot, Secunderabad, filed this writ petition, with a prayer as under:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent in not allowing the petitioner the deferred two increments which shall have effect on future increments of the petitioner and not treating the period from removal to reporting duty as on duty by modifying the Proc. Dated 18/8/2003 of R1 herein as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and disproportionate and also consequently direct the respondents to award the 12 years Special Grade/Stagnation Increment wef completion of 12 years service of the petitioner including interregnum period ie 22/8/1999 – 2/2/1995 and pass such other order or orders.”
Earlier to the present place of posting, the petitioner was working at Cantonment Depot, Secunderabad as a Conductor. He was on duty on 15-01-2003, on route No.44X, on the bus bearing No.4644. When the bus reached stage No.2, a check was exercised by the ticket inspectors, wherein they noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Based on the report submitted by them, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the following charge was framed against him.
“For having failed to issue ticket to a lady passenger found traveling without ticket who boarded your bus at Gangaputra colony and bound for Sec’bad station (ex. stages 3 to 1) in spite of collecting the requisite fare amount of Rs.3-00 at the boarding point itself which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(vi-a) x (x) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963.”
On petitioner denying the said charge, enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after recording oral evidence and also on perusal of the documentary evidence filed in the enquiry proceedings, recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charge framed against him. Based on the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, after issuing show-cause notice and calling for explanation, the disciplinary authority, i.e. the Depot Manager, Cantonment Depot, passed order dated 25-03-2003 removing the petitioner from service, by treating his entire suspension period as not on duty for all purposes. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority approved the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, but keeping in view 17-long years of service rendered by the petitioner, has taken a lenient view and modified the punishment of removal from service to that of deferment of increments for a period of two years, which will have effect on future increments. Further, the appellate authority held that the period from the date of removal till the petitioner reports to duty shall be treated as not on duty for all purposes.
In this writ petition, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of any valid evidence on record, the enquiry officer held that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved. It is submitted that cash available with the petitioner was not examined and the passenger was also not examined in the disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that at earlier point of time also the petitioner was removed from service and later reinstated pursuant to the award of the Tribunal by giving benefit of continuity of service; in spite of the same, special grade/stagnation increment, on completion of 12 years in the same post, was not extended to him.
The Law Officer, APSRTC, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is specifically stated that when check was exercised at stage No.12, the ticket inspectors found that a lady passenger was traveling without ticket from Gangaputra Colony to Secunderabad Station, i.e. ex-stages 3 to 1. It is further stated that the petitioner, having collected an amount of Rs.3/- towards requisite fare, failed to issue ticket to the passenger, with a mala fide intention, to defraud the revenue of the Corporation. It is stated that on finding prima facie case of cash and ticket irregularities against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by order dated 15-01-2003 and the enquiry officer who conducted enquiry submitted report that the petitioner failed to issue ticket intentionally to the lady passenger, having collected requisite fare from her. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the order of removal is justified in view of the proven misconduct on the part of the petitioner; as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
From a perusal of the order of removal, it is clear that the petitioner, in response to the charge-sheet issued to him, has simply denied the allegation of collecting the fare from the passenger. At the time of check, the statement of the passenger was recorded, who in categorical terms, stated that she paid Rs.3/- to the petitioner at the time of boarding the bus, i.e. at stage No.3. Although it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are over-writings in the statement of the passenger, but, I have perused a copy of the said statement, which is filed by the petitioner along with the material papers. There are no over-writings or corrections in the said statement. From the very statement, it is clear that the passenger has stated that she paid Rs.3/-, but was not issued ticket. It is also to be noted that in the enquiry proceedings, one of the ticket inspectors was examined in support of the charge. During his examination, he has deposed that the lady passenger confronted to the petitioner and her statement was also obtained. A finding is recorded by the disciplinary authority in the order of removal to the effect that the bus was carrying about 26 passengers only, inclusive of the passenger from whom fare was collected, at the time of check. In view of the documentary evidence, mainly the statement of the passenger coupled with the deposition of the ticket inspector, the enquiry officer has correctly appreciated the evidence available and recorded a finding that the petitioner, having collected the fare, did not issue ticket to the passenger who boarded the bus at stage No.3. The ticket inspector who was present at the time of check was examined in the disciplinary proceedings and the same was marked. Such evidence can easily be relied on in the disciplinary proceedings of this nature. Even the appellate authority has agreed with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority, further, taking into account the length of service rendered by the petitioner, has granted substantial relief to him, by modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of two increments. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders, in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, with regard to the claim of the petitioner as regards grant of stagnation increments, on completion of 12 years in the same post, in view of continuity of service granted to him, it is to be seen that the same is not examined by the respondents. In absence of any averments in the counter affidavit as to why such increments were not extended to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a representation to the third respondent-Depot Manager for grant of special grade increments/stagnation increments. If any such representation is received from the petitioner, his claim shall be examined with reference to the circular instructions on the subject; appropriate decision shall be taken and communicated to him within two months from the date of his making representation.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 23, 2010 MRR