Partly allowed

P. Rajanna, Kurnool Dist v. the a.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd & 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2024WP/17978/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition challenging a disciplinary punishment of pay reduction. Finding the petitioner not solely responsible for an accident where passengers were illegally alighting and noting criminal acquittal, the Court modified the punishment to comply with future increments and directed arrears payment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned punishment of reduction of basic pay by two incremental stages was modified to remove effect on future increments; respondents directed to release deferred pay within six weeks.

P. Rajanna, Kurnool Dist Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

z*''

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17978 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

DisM Sanjanna R/o Nandikotkur, Kurnool

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad Hyderabad.

¶12

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Region, Kurnool District.

¶13

The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, O/o Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Region, Kurnool District.

¶14

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kurnool-ll, Kurnool District.

¶15

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein in imposing the punishment of Reduction of Basic pay by 2 incremental stages with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension

¶18

¶19

period as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments vide proc. No.PA/19(165)/2008-RM-Q, Dt 8-12-2008, while conforming^theorders of

¶20

• the appellate and disciplinary authority vide proc No.ST/19(142)/2008Dyctm, Dated. 16-9-2008, and proc No.01/2(3)/08-Q2^{Dated.29-5-2008} as illegal, unjust and arbitrary as such liable to be set side in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to pay the arrears of differed Increments and wages for the out of employment period^forthwith.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. S M SUBHAN

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR^APSRTC KKAC)

¶23

The Court made the following order:

¶24

¶25

APHC010099382011

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17978/2011

¶30

Between; P. Rajanna, Kurnool Dist ...PETITIONER AND The A P S R T C Hyd 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) ■4

¶32

The Court made the following Order:

¶33

The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the 2 nd respondent, dated 08.12.2008, whereby the 3"'^ respondent^imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages,

¶34

which will have permanent effect of his future increments.

¶35

The petitioner joined the respondent corporation as^adriverin the year 1992. While on duty on 18.01.2008 at 22:00^hours,when the petitioner tried to reverse the vehicle as per^{thesignalofthe} service conductor, it was found that one lady passenger^wasinjured

¶36

as she got off the bus, though all the passengers were^directednot

¶37

2 HN, J W.P.No.l7978_2011

¶38

to get off the bus. On account of the injuries, the passenger subsequently died after being shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool. Based on the allegation of rash and negligent driving, the disciplinary authority issued a charge sheet and imposed the punishment of removal from service, vide proceedings dated 29.05.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner^filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which dismissed the appeal, vide proceedings dated 16.09.2008. The petitioner preferred a review before the revision authority and impugned proceedings were issued.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was also tried in C.C.No.464 of 2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool and was found not guilty, vide judgment dated 24.02.2009. It is submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the imposition of the severe punishment of reduction of pay by two^incremental stages, which will effect on his future increments, is unjust. As such, the petitioner prays for the writ petition to^beallowed.

¶40

The learned Standing counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of

¶41

■ ^

¶42

¶43

HN, J W.P.No.l7978_2011

¶44

the petitioner. A detailed enquiry was conducted by^followingthe principles of natural justice, only after issuing a^{showcausenotice} and after pursuing the explanation submitted by the^petitioner. The Depot Manager imposed the punishment of removal from^service. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal however,^thereview authority directed reinstatement, noting that when^{afatalaccident} occurs, the corporation imposes the punishment as applicable^on the facts of the case.

¶45

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and pursuing the pleadings, it is evident that^{thepetitioner} cannot be solely held responsible for causing the accident,^which resulted in the death of the lady passenger. The duty^conductor had requested the passengers not to get off the bus and no occasion should have arisen for the lady passenger to get off the bus at 22:00 hours. The allegations of rash and negligent^driving cannot be sustained, as the bus was being reversed^atthetimeof the accident. Therefore, there is no question of rash and negligent driving or lack of anticipation.

¶46

Considering all these factors, this Court is inclined^tomodify the impugned punishment imposed by the 2"'^ respondent,^reducing

¶47

4 HN, J W.P.No.l7978_2011

¶48

reduction of basic pay by two incremental the punishment to a stages, without effecting future increments.

¶49

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed,^{bydirectingthe} respondents to release the deferred pay within a period^ofsix(06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶51

Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO stand closed. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶57

District. 2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Region, Kurnool

¶58

The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, O/o Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Region, Kurnool District.

¶59

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool-ll, Kurnool District.

¶60

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.

¶61

One CC to M/s. S M Subhan Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to Sri. Aravala Rama Rao(SC for APSRTC) [OPUC]

¶63

Three CD Copies

GSC

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/11/2024

ORDER

WP.No.17978 of 2011

ro
75:
o 2 I DEC 20?i| S
Current Section . ^

¶70

PARTLY ALLOWING OF THE WP

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

P. Rajanna, Kurnool Dist v. the a.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd & 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Rajanna, Kurnool Dist v. the a.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd & 4 Others

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

Kurakula Krishan Rao Vs Dasari Tamma Dora

V.Nageswra Rao Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh, rep.by its

Bupathiraju Srinivasa Raju Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

V.Sudarsana Rao, Vizianagaram. Vs Primary Agrl Coop. Society & 2 Others

M/S Super Spinning Mills, Hindupur Vs the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer & Another

G.Muni Ramaiah, Tirupathi Rural,Chittoor District Vs V.C. & M.D., Apsrtc., Mushirabad,Hyderabad & Another