Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
S.R. Goud - Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Manager, APSRTC Mahaboobnagar Region, Mahaboobnagar and Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2498 of 2013
Decided On : 05-07-2022
Mandamus - Employment Dispute - APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963, Regulation 28(v), (ix,a) & (xxxii); CCA Regulations - The court allowed the writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in imposing the modified punishment of reduction of petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect as unwarranted. The court referred to Ch.P. Reddy Vs. APSRTC and Another, 2000 (5) ALT 7 and S. Niranjan Vs. APSRTC to highlight that penalty should be imposed only for actual loss sustained due to loss of tickets and that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the misconduct. The court found that the charge framed against the petitioner does not indicate misuse of tickets and hence, the impugned punishment is unwarranted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of APSRTC, sought writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in imposing the modified punishment of reduction of petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and unreasonable. The petitioner was alleged to have failed to take precautionary measures resulting in the loss of ticket blocks worth Rs.1,40,000/-, leading to a charge of misconduct under Regulation 28(v), (ix,a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge framed against the petitioner does not indicate misuse of tickets and hence, the impugned punishment is unwarranted. The court also noted that the disciplinary authority failed to take into account the past record of the petitioner and that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the misconduct.
Issues: The issues revolved around the imposition of the modified punishment of reduction of petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and whether the charge framed against the petitioner indicated misuse of tickets.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that penalty should be imposed only for actual loss sustained due to loss of tickets and that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the misconduct. The court also emphasized that the past record of the petitioner should be taken into account while awarding punishment.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed as the court found the impugned punishment to be unwarranted.
ORDER :
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Heard the counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in imposing the modified punishment of reduction of petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable by setting aside the proceeding No.PA/19(19)/2012-RM:MBNR, dated 08.01.2013 in so far as the remaining punishment only and consequently direct the respondents to allow the increments to the petitioner as usual. 2(i) The case of the petitioner in brief is that he has been appointed as Conductor on 02.06.1977 in the Corporation of the respondents and he has been promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk/Controller on 17.06.1996 and thereafter on 12.07.2011 he has been further promoted to the post of Depot Clerk. Since the date of petitioner’s appointment and till his retirement petitioner discharged his duties in APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar Region and retired from service on 31.08.2013. In the petitioners entire service there is no remark at all in petitioner’s record. 2(ii). The petitioner further submits that he was issued with a charge sheet dated 07.01.2012, alleging that 14 ticket blocks of Rs.100/- denomination were misplaced for not taking of precautionary measures and petitioner offered explanation stating that about 10 to 15 employees will work around the almarah and those ticket blocks were not used any where and a police complaint was also lodged. But without looking into the said explanation and without examining any witnesses a formal enquiry was conducted, the respondents authorities issued office order dated 26.03.2012 by reverting the petitioner from Depot Clerk to ADC/ Controller. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said reversion orders before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Mahaboobnagar Region, but the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 25.08.2012. The petitioner filed a review petition before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 08.01.2013 by setting aside the office order dated 26.03.2012 and restored petitioner’s previous post of Depot Clerk and further modified the punishment for reduction of petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. As such the remaining punishment is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner further submits that his retirement date is 31.08.2013 and prayed to allow the writ petition.
3. This Court on 29.04.2013 was pleased to grant interim direction vide WP MP No.3040 of 2013 directing the respondents not to effect the modified/remaining punishment of reduction of petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect by suspending the proceeding No.PA/19(19)/2012-RM:MBNR, dated 08.01.2013 of the 1st respondent herein for the extent of the said punishment.
4. The main contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner are as follows:
(I) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Court reported in Ch.P. Reddy Vs. APSRTC and Another, 2000 (5) ALT 7, dated 24.07.2000 and contended that under identical case of a charge of loosing the tickets. This Court held as follows :
“Imposition of penalty of payment of aggregate amount consisting of value of tickets stolen, cost of printing of tickets and cost of tickets tray lost – Not legal – Misuse of tickets lost not charged in the charge – sheet – Employee cannot be punished for charge not mentioned – Penalty be imposed only for actual loss sustained due to loss of tickets i.e., cost of printing and cost of tray and not the value of tickets lost under the C.C.A. Regulations – Impugned order quashed with direction to recover only the amount lost because of negligence of the petitioner”
(II) The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of this Court between S. Niranjan Vs. APSRTC and 2 others, AP HC WP No.23115 of 2008, dated 13.12.2010 to the ex
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the misconduct and should be based on the actual loss sustained due to the misconduct.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice and prescribed regulations; imposing unauthorized punishments is unlawful.
The court can modify disciplinary actions when found disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
The punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct, and past conduct should not be considered without notice to the employee.
The court emphasized that it does not sit as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence, but would only interfere if the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence or if there are....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
