Disposed

M. Nagaraja Rao, Anantapur District. v. the Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Anantapur.

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2025WP/26601/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC conductor-cum-superintendent challenged disciplinary punishment deferring his annual increment for two years with cumulative effect after ticket-block losses. Following an identical unreported decision confirmed in writ appeal, the High Court modified the punishment to stoppage of increment without cumulative effect and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Punishment modified: stoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect instead of two-year deferment with cumulative effect; no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

M. Nagaraja Rao, Anantapur District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3504]

¶2

APHC010537432006

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 26601/2006

¶9

Between:

¶10

M. Nagaraja Rao, Anantapur District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Regional Manager Apsrtc Anantapur

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.None Appeared

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶18

A. Rama Rao

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

The present writ petition has been instituted by invoking Article 226

¶21

of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer:-

¶22

“…… issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.PA/675(104)/05-RM.A dt.13.10.2006 of the respondent, in so far as ordering defer annual increment for a period of two years permanently which shall have effect on future increments as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and

¶23

¶24

contrary to the regulations of the Corporation and in violation of Art. 14 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to add increments as usually….”

¶25

In the present lis, proceedings No.PA/675(104)/05-RM.A dated 13.10.2006, of the 1^st respondent which were passed against the petitioner, to the extent of ordering deferment of annual increment for a period of two years permanently, which shall have effect on the future increments are being challenged before this Hon’ble Court.

¶26

Brief Case of the Petitioner:

¶27

As claimed by the petitioner, he joined in the respondent Corporation as a Conductor on 28.05.1974. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to Assistant Depot Clerk (A.D.C) and later to Depot Clerk(D.C) (Earnings). At last, he was escalated to the post of Superintendent (T). The respondent authorities due to allegations, issued Charge Sheet dated 10.06.2004, with the following charges:-

¶28

For having held responsible for loss of the above Ticket blocks of various denominations worth of Rs.21,00000, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(V) of APSRTC Employee's (conduct) Regulations 1963.

¶29

2). For having had gross negligence in maintaining ticket stock correctly resulting in loss of three ticket blocks, which constitutes misconduct under 28(vii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963.

¶30

¶31

It is also stated that, for the above charges, the petitioner submitted an explanation. Ultimately, the Depot Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short ‘APSRTC’) through proceedings dated 13.12.2004, ordered for the recovery of Rs.21,000/from the petitioner’s salary in 40 instalments towards face value of Ticket blocks.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that, against the proceedings dated 13.12.2004, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Ananthapur and the same was rejected vide orders dated 20.04.2005. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner carried the matter by way of revision to the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ananthapuram.

¶33

The Revisional authority vide proceedings No.PA/675(104)/05-RM.A dated 13.10.2006, set-aside the said orders but, directed to recover the printing and stationary charges, as per the Rules in vogue from the petitioner. In that process, it was ordered that, the petitioner annual increment going to fall due, deferred for a period of two years, which shall have effect on his future increments eligibility if any.

¶34

Aggrieved by the said orders, particularly in respect to deferment

¶35

of his annual increment for a period of two years permanently, which shall have an effect on future increments, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

¶36

¶37

Brief Case of the respondent:-

¶38

The respondent Corporation filed it’s counter, admitting the date on which the petitioner joined as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation and accepting that promotions conferred on the petitioner are true and correct. The Corporation mainly asserted that, the petitioner had been subjected to multiple punishments during his service as a Conductor as well A.D.C. It is further stated that the petitioner, is the main custodian of the ticket blocks, which were found missing from the stock. Thus, taking into account all the aspects, the Charge Sheet was issued against the petitioner. The Depot Manager and the concerned higher authorities of the respondent Corporation by perceiving all the aspects, had taken a lenient view and passed the impugned orders dated 13.10.2006, directing the recovery of printing and stationary charges as per the rules in vogue. It is also ordered that the petitioner annual increment falls due to be deferred for a period of two years permanently, which shall have effect to his future increments eligibilities, if any. In nutshell, the order impugned in the writ petition is just and reasonable.

¶39

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation vehemently, contended that, the petitioner was negligent and had multiple punishments imposed on him by the Corporation while discharging his duties as Conductor and A.D.C too. It is further stated

¶40

¶41

that the respondent Corporation conducted an enquiry, which culminated in specific findings against the petitioner. Since the petitioner is a custodian of the said ticket blocks, he is liable for punishment. Hence, the impugned orders are equitable.

¶42

It is apt to mention that on 13.12.2014, it was represented on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel that presently, he was appointed as Standing Counsel for APSRTC. As such, he has given up his vakalath. Consequently, this Court directed the notice be issued to the petitioner. In compliance, the Registry has taken the notice and the same was returned with an Endorsement as “no such person in the depot”. Later, as there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, this court after going through the material on record, and also after hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation to meet the ends of Justice passed the orders as per the record available.

¶43

Consideration of the Court :-

¶44

This Court has gone through the material on record and assertions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Corporation.

¶45

It is trite to note that apparently, there is no doubt that the petitioner was a custodian of ticket blocks, which were lost in discharging his duties and also in view of the peculiar facts and

¶46

¶47

circumstances involved in the instant case, particularly considering that the petitioner has been facing departmental proceedings trauma since 2004 in one Forum or another, along with the factors such as his old age, which leads to multifarious problems i.e., physically, psychologically and fiscally too to the petitioner.

¶48

At this juncture, it is apt to note the learned Single Judge orders dated 01.11.2018 in W.P. No.3545 of 2007 of the unified High Court at Hyderabad, in the identical circumstances, pleased to pass the following

¶49

order:-

¶50

“……This Court having considered the submissions made by both the parties is of the considered view that revisional authority ought to have imposed reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed by the revisional authority is modified to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect.

¶51

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by the revisional authority to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect. It is made clear that the above modified punishment is without any monetary benefits. No order as to costs……”

¶52

The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3545 of

¶53

2007, dated 01.11.2018, was further confirmed in W.A.No.440 of 2019 vide order dated 17.10.2022.

¶54

¶55

Taking into consideration the above said order, coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by modifying the punishment of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect, to that of stoppage of increment, without cumulative effect.

¶56