The court ruled that recovery of salary amounts without prior notice or inquiry violates principles of natural justice and relevant regulations, rendering such orders illegal.

ORDER:

The instant writ petition is being filed by the petitioners seeking the following main relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India, which reads as under:

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Directions, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Common Office Order issued by the 3^rd respondent in proceedings No.E1/482(1)/16-MYDK, dated 20.12.2016, received on 28.12.2016 ordering to recovery of the amounts from the salaries of the petitioners in three equal monthly installments without giving any notice and opportunity as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, amounts to unfair labour practice and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India by directing the 3^rd respondent to refund the deducted amount with interest by granting all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and to pass…..”

Brief case of the petitioners:

2. As per the version stated in the writ petition, all the petitioners are working as permanent employees of the 1^st respondent Corporation and discharging their duties as Drivers and Conductors in the 3^rd respondent Depot.

3. It is also stated that, through the instant writ petition, the petitioners challenged the office order No.E1/482(1)/16-MYDK, dated 20.12.2016, issued by the 3^rd respondent to them individually, whereby and where under, ordering for recovery of amounts from their respective salaries were assailed.

4. The main case projected by the petitioners is that, without any prior notices or without conducting any enquiry in accordance with the Rules in vogue, the orders dated 20.12.2016 were issued against them. In nutshell, the petitioners contended that, the impugned orders are transgression of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal), Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 1967’) and also gross violation of principles of natural justice.

Case of the Respondent – Corporation:

5. The 1^st respondent Corporation filed its elaborate counter running into eight pages. Wherein, the sum and substance is that the Audit team of the 1^st respondent Corporation was inspected the DCP and PMS Musters of conductors and Drivers of the 3^rd respondent Depot and found serious discrepancies etc. It is also stated in the counter that, the Personnel Officer, Kadapa, along with the other officers caused a scrutiny of Muster (MTD 441) and DCP with that of PMS Module in respect of conductors and drivers of the 3^rd respondent Depot for the period 17.03.2014 to 16.12.2014. In the said inquiry, Personnel Officer and his team found irregularities viz; some employees were given musters though they had not worked, which resulted pecuniary loss to the 1^st respondent Corporation to the tune of Rs.5,27,201.71 ps. Thus, the Personnel Officer, Kadapa submitted report No.PA/482(1)/2014-RM-K, dated 11.03.2015 to the 2^nd respondent.

6. It is further stated in the counter that, basing upon the Report dated 11.03.2015, the 2^nd respondent through the office order No.PA/482 (1)/2014-RM-K, dated 25.10.2016, directed the 3^rd respondent to recover the amounts from the monthly salaries of the concerned staff in three monthly installments and report compliance.

7. It is also asserted that the 3^rd respondent in obedience with the 2^nd respondent orders calculated the total pecuniary loss amount of Rs.5,27,201.71 and issued recovery proceedings through impugned orders No.E1/482(1)/16-MYDK dated 20.12.2016 to the petitioners and others individually, who are working as Drivers and Conductors in the 3^rd respondent Depot proposed the amount to be recovered in three installments from the petitioners.

8. It is further stated in the counter that consequent to the interim orders dated 27.01.2017 of this Court, they recovered only partial amount (one installment only) and stopped further recovery proceedings against the petitioners.

9. Heard the le