Disciplinary actions must be clearly justified and charges appropriately framed; reliance on benefit of doubt requires correct application in penalties.

ORDER :

Namavarapu Rajeshwara Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“……..to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned Proc.No.PA/20(321)/09-HR, dated 19.01.2010 insofar as deferring two increments with cumulative effect, treating the removal period as not on duty for all the purposes and not granting the consequential benefits of continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently the petitioners pray this Hon’ble Court to direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments and treat the out of service period as duty period for all purposes along with all consequential benefits ……”.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(i) The petitioner joined the service of the respondents Corporation as a Conductor on 07.03.1990 under breadwinner scheme. Subsequently, his services were regularized. While the petitioner was conducting the bus service of the 3rd respondent on 08.06.2009 on route No.1(1-J) Metro Express from Secunderabad Station to Jiyaguda via Gandhi Hospital, the checking officials checked his bus at Stage No.9/8 i.e., Gandhi Hospital and issued the memo alleging as follows :-

“1. You have already collected the requisite fare at the boarding point and not issued the tickets to (2) two passengers found alighting without tickets at Gandhi Hospital, stage No.9/8, who boarded at Secunderabad Station stage No.9.

2. You have issued the ticket Nos.777/773190 and 777/773191 of Rs.4/- deno. (E.2) to another passenger by sighting punch who is not related with the alighting passengers. The passenger was travelling in the bus.

Confiscated the above tickets for reference.”

(ii) The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the above memo on 10.06.2009 stating that he had issued tickets to all the passengers including the passengers in question and they might have thrown the said tickets on the footboard steps while alighting from the bus. After checking the bus, the checking officials had followed in the bus upto stage No.1 i.e., Jiyaguda and framed the case, contrary to the facts after alighting all the passengers from the bus and issued the charge Memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had suspended the petitioner from service and issued charge-sheet framing the following charge :-

“For having already collected the requisite fare and at the boarding point itself and not issued the tickets to the two passengers found alighting without tickets at Gandhi Hospital, Stage No.9/8 who boarded your bus at Secunderabad Station and you have issued ticket No.777/773190 and 191 of Rs.4/- denomination E2 tickets to another passenger by sighting punch who is not related with the alighting passengers, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

(iii) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above charge on 18.06.2009. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued show- cause notice dated 30.07.2009 proposing to impose the punishment of removal. The petitioner submitted explanation on 13.08.2009 stating that the very charge framed is not sustainable as he was charged under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963 (for short ‘the Regulation’), which deals with issuing of used tickets to the passengers, and there is no allegation that he had issued the used tickets to passengers. However, the 3^rd respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitione