Telangana High Court
P.Lingam Goud, S/O. Anja Goud vs The Apsrtc on 26 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35283 of 2013
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:
".....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.2 herein in not cancelling the total punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent herein as bad arbitrary illegal by setting aside the balance punishment mentioned in Proc. No. PA/20(104)/2012-GHZ dt.11-01-2013 of the respondent No. 2 herein and consequently direct the respondents not to effect the modified punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 1 year cumulative effect and treat the period from date of removal to date of reporting as on duty for all purposes and pass such other order or orders."
2. Heard Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Casual Conductor in the year 2006 and his services were regularized in the month of January, 2010. While he was performing his 2 duties in BHEL bus depot on 14.03.2012 with vehicle No.3169 on route No.219, a check was exercised at stage No.8 (Hydernagar) and the checking officials alleged that the petitioner collected Rs.12/- from two passengers and issued unconnected tickets to them and also made other allegations to which the petitioner had submitted his explanation. Having not been satisfied with the explanation, the respondent- Corporation basing on the report of the checking officials issued charge memo and the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation requesting the respondent-Corporation to drop the charges. Having not been satisfied with the explanation, the respondent-Corporation initiated departmental enquiry by appointing enquiry officer. Basing upon the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned proceedings vide No.PA/20(104)/2012-GHZ dated 11.01.2013 imposing punishment of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect.
3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner specifically deposed before the enquiry officer that at the time of check, there was heavy capacity of not less than 80 passengers in the bus including pass holders and at the time of check, the said passengers have picked up the ticket Nos.023/202615 and 023/202616 of Rs.12/- denomination from the floor of the bus and shown to the TTIs. Further the said passengers have also given statement before the enquiry officer that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity while discharging his duties on that day. The respondent No.2 without properly considering the enquiry report, imposed major punishment of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and the same is contrary to law.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Corporation submitted that the respondent No.2 imposed the punishment after following due procedure as contemplated under law and there is no 4 illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of material available on record, the enquiry report clearly reveals that the petitioner has collected Rs.12/- from two passengers and issued unconnected tickets to them and also made other allegations to which the petitioner had submitted his explanation and the respondent No.2 without considering the same, passed the impugned order, imposing major punishment of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, and the same is contrary to law.
7. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of service rendered by the petitioner, this Court deems if fit and proper to modify the quantum of "punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect to that of punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect" for a period of one 5 year. However, it is made clear that this modification of the 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 prior to passing of this order.
8. Subject to the above modification, this writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 26st July, 2023 GSD 6 82 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.35283 of 2013 26st July, 2023 GSD