ORDER :

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proc.No:PA/19(129)/2004-DVM:JGTL, dated 29.01.2005 to the extent of imposing punishment of “reduction of pay by 2 (Two) incremental stages for a period of 2 (Two) years with cumulative effect.” as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to pay all benefits that are denied pursuant to the impugned order.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The Petitioner had been appointed as a Daily Wage Driver in the respondent corporation on 02.02.1996 and the petitioner’s services were regularised on 01.01.1997.On 04.5.2004, the petitioner after completion of the required trips made a night out at Mangela village and started to Jagityal the next day at around 06:00 AM.

(b) At Konapur, 2 passengers stopped the bus and one passenger started unloading the teakwood from the top of the bus and the petitioner was alighted and asked the passenger where the wood has been loaded from.One person who came from the backside of the bus ran away on spotting the forest officials leaving his scooter.

(c) The forest officials loaded the scooter and the teakwood in the bus and brought the bus to Jagityal Forest Office and instructed the passenger to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-but the passenger only paid a fine of Rs. 10,000/- only. However, the officials issued the Receipt in the name of the petitioner and when the petitioner questioned about the same, the Forest Officials threatened the petitioner, that they will seize the bus and petitioner in the fear of getting the bus seized kept quiet.

(d) The 3rd Respondent had issued a chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner through his reply, dated 17.05.2004 had explained his stand to 3rd respondent. In spite of the same, the petitioner was directed to face domestic enquiry and the petitioner during his enquiry got examined. Mr.B.Shankaraiah, witness, who paid the fine to the Forest Officials and had agreed to the fact that, he had purchased the teakwood at Mangela for door, to his house at Jagityal and loaded the same onto the bus at night and wanted to inform the crew in the morning but failed to do so.

(e) The enquiry officer, without appreciating the said evidence, submitted his report dated 07.08.2004, holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and the 3rd respondent invited the comments of the Enquiry Officer, findings and consequently issued a show cause notice of removal from service, to the petitioners by proceedings dated 15.10.2004 and the petitioner once again explained his innocence and requested the 3rd respondent to consider his explanation and to drop further proceedings. But, the 3rd respondent without considering the request of the petitioner, removed the petitioner from service with immediate effect vide his Proceedings No: 01/535(11)/2004-JGTL, dated 01.11.2004.

(f) Aggrieved by the order, of 3rd Respondent, petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent in appeal and the 2nd respondent was pleased to consider the petitioners appeal taking into consideration the petitioners previous service, but on erroneous view the petitioner’s pay was reduced by 2 (Two) incremental stages for a period of 2 (Two) years with cumulative effect.

(g) The petitioner was reinstated into service by 2nd respondent vide his Proc.No:PA/19(129)/2004 dated 29.01.2005 and has preferred review before the Regional Manager, Jagityal which has been rejected without any consideration.

(h) The petitioner along with the conductor was sleeping in Gram panchayat of Mangela in the night and were not aware of the loading teakwood on top of the bus and the same was admitted by Mr. B.Shankaraiah, before the enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer and the Appellate and Review Authority had failed to take the oral and documentar