Partly allowed

R.Srinivasulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Sept 2022WP/23205/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenging reinstatement conditions imposed for first-time cash and ticket irregularities was partly allowed. The High Court directed the respondent to pay deferred increments and treated suspension as on duty given the petitioner's long, unblemished service history.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd Respondent to pay deferred annual increments within six weeks and treat the suspension period from 10.7.2013 to 06.6.2018 as on duty.

R.Srinivasulu Vs The Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23205 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶6

“…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.AMP/1920/2018-NZ, dated 06.06.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent by imposing terms and conditions viz (i) his Annual Increment be deferred for a period of ONE Year with cumulative effect on future increments (ii) The period from the date of removal from service till the date of joining duty is treated as Not On Duty for all purposes as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the rules and law on the subject and set aside the punishment of deferment of annual increment and consequently direct the Respondents to give continuity of service with all back wages service benefits attendant benefits and all monetary benefits by treating the suspension and removal period of the petitioner from 10.7.2013 to 06.6.2018 as on duty with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that on 6.7.2013 when

¶8

the petitioner was performing his duty on the route Kondur to Nellore in bus bearing No.AP 26 Z 0091, the Zonal enforcement Squad, Nellore have exercised a check at about

¶9

¶10

10.40 hours at stage No.1 i.e., Nellore. After the check, the officials of Enforcement Squad alleged that though the petitioner has collected an amount of Rs.22.00 towards the requisite fare from a passenger, who boarded the bus at Podalakur and found alighting at Nellore, but not issued ticket to him. After completion of check, the petitioner has submitted his spot explanation dated 7.7.2013 stating that the passenger has given Rs.100/- asking the ticket to Nellore. Due to non-availability of the change, the petitioner has written on the back side of the ticket and when the petitioner was issuing the ticket, the passenger was talking in phone in depression mood. At that time, beside passenger took the ticket stating that the passenger is his friend and he will give ticket to him. Hence, the petitioner has given the same to him. Further, the said passenger, Penchulaiah, who took the ticket also stated the same version before the squad officials.

¶11

It is further stated that the 4^th respondent issued impugned suspension order dated 10.07.2013 and later issued charge sheet calling the explanation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation

¶12

¶13

on 22.7.2013 denying the charges alleged against him. But without considering his explanation, the 4^th respondent issued impugned proceedings vide No.02/95(121)/2013RPR, dated 22.7.2014 terminating the petitioner from service. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3^rd respondent. However, the 3^rd respondent did not consider the appeal of the petitioner. Accordingly, he approached this Court by way of filing WP No.23419 of 2017 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 14.7.2017 directed the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of order and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.

¶14

It is further stated that, the petitioner preferred mercy petition before the 2^nd respondent requesting to set aside the proceedings issued by the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings vide No.AM(P)/19(20)/ 2018-NZ dated 6.6.2018 stating that “ Set aside and reinstated into service with immediate effect ” subject to the following terms and conditions. Aggrieved by the conditions

¶15

¶16

imposed in the reinstatement orders, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents while denying all the allegations made in the petition contended that as the petitioner had committed serious Cash & ticket irregularities, he was suspended vide suspension order No.02/95(121)/2013-RPR, dated 10.7.2013 and also a charge sheet was issued vide Charge Sheet bearing No02/95(121)/2013-RPR, dated 10.7.2013 and the case was entrusted to the enquiry Officer-AM(T)/ Nellore-1 Depot to conduct a detailed enquiry into the case. The enquiry officer has submitted detailed enquiry report dated 2.11.2013 stating that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Hence, show cause notice of removal from service was issued to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 10.01.2014. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted his explanation. As the explanation to the show cause notice of removal is not convincing, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 21.01.2014.

¶18

It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted mercy petition to the Executive Director, APSRTC, Nellore

¶19

¶20

and the Executive Director, APSRTC, Nellore had considered and imposed penalty of deferment of annual increment for a period of ONE year with cumulative effect on future increments besides treating the period from the date of removal from service to till the joining date as NOT ON DUTY . Now the petitioner is working at Vakadu depot as conductor. Hence, there are no justifiable grounds in the present petition that warrants interference of this court and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has issued tickets to all the passengers and reflected the numbers of those tickets in SR., the disciplinary authority during the enquiry has not discussed any submission and explanation submitted by the petitioner, nor he has considered his past unblemished conduct. He further submits that in terms of Circular No.32/91-OPD(c ) dated 24.09.1991 for any misconduct like issuing the reused tickets, the punishment prescribed is

¶23

¶24

deferment of one increment with cumulative effect. But in the instant case without properly conducting any enquiry, passed the impugned orders and hence the same needs to be modified and hence requests this Court to pass appropriate orders as stated above.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has committed serious Cash and Ticket irregularities and also states that as a lenient view was taken in the mercy petition filed by the petitioner, the punishment was imposed. He further submits that the grounds urged in the writ petition are neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law and viewed from any angle, it is manifestly clear that there are absolutely no merits in the present writ petition and hence liable to be dismissed.

¶26

On hearing this Court observed that the petitioner was appointed as Casual conductor in Corporation during 1992 and the services were regularized in 1995. It is further observed that on verification of the personal records, the petitioner, in his entire service, was removed for the first time for his involvement in Cash & Ticket Irregularities case. Therefore, the removal orders passed by the disciplinary

¶27

¶28

authority ordered to be set aside and the petitioner be restored to his service with immediate effect subect to certain conditions.

¶29

As per Circular No.04/2008-OPD(HES), dated 8.2.2008 issued by the Corporation, which is filed as material paper at page No.76 (Ex.P9), wherein, it was held that the Union informed that though exhaustive instructions are there on Job security to the Conductors, some of them are not adhered with true spirit. Hence, the instructions vide circulars in the reference are reiterated/modified . It was mentioned at No.8, as under:

¶30

“8. IMPOSING PUNISHMENTS & PENALTIES:

¶31

Guidelines issued vide Circular No.PD-10/02, dated 9.3.2022 (ref. No.8 cited) on imposing punishments on delinquent Conductors in Cash & Ticket irregularities cases are reiterated hereunder:

¶32

a). If it is a case of first misconduct, punishment of removal from service need not be imposed, unless the case is of very serious nature.

¶33

b). Penalty of removal from service will be imposed in case of serious Cash & Ticket irregularities such as re-issue of Tickets, sale of fake tickets, issue of unconcerned tickets, alterations in STAR and way bills etc.

¶34

¶35

c). Like-wise, in cases of inadvertent irregularity or cases where benefit of doubt is due to the employee, a lenient view may be taken.

¶36

d). Appellate Authorities shall follow uniformity in awarding punishments based on the merits of the case.”

¶37

As seen from the impugned proceedings dated

¶38

6.6.2018, it was mentioned that the driver of the bus witnessed that when the checking officials noticed one ticketless passenger, his friend informed them that he had collected the ticket of his friend and the checking officials forcibly collected the ticket from the friend. At the time of check the bus is in strength of 78+1. However, the entire scene attracted the public criticism, by gathering at alighting point, besides arguments and tarnished the image of the Corporation. Moreover, as seen from the Circular cited above, if it is a case of first misconduct, punishment of removal from service need not be imposed.

¶39

Taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner and upon perusing the entire material available on record, in the interest of justice, it is just and proper to modify the imposing terms and conditions imposed in the impugned proceedings vide

¶40

¶41

No.AM(P)/19(20)/ 2018-NZ, dated 6.6.2018 issued by the

¶42

2^nd respondent; as under:

¶43

i) the 2^nd respondent is directed to PAY the annual increment which was deferred for a period of ONE year with cumulative effect on future increments to the petitioner, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is partly allowed accordingly to that extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,

¶46

shall stand closed.

¶47

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶48

Date : 20 -09-2022 Gvl

¶49

¶50

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶51

WRIT PETITION No.23205 of 2021

¶52

Date : 20 .09.2022

¶53

Gvl

R.Srinivasulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Srinivasulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taddi Trinadharao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Jareena, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sayyad Karimuliasha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Obuleswaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Srinivasa Sastry Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Obuleswaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh