The court can modify disciplinary actions when found disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned punishment of reduction of pay by (2) incremental stage with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as not on duty vide Proceedings No. 02/95(29)/2012-GPP, dated 30.03.2013 as confirmed in appeal vide Proceedings No.PA/20(34)/2013-Dy.CTM/MR, dated 20.03.2014 as arbitrary. Consequently, direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments duly treating the suspension period as duty with wages along with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Shanthi Bhushan, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:-

That the petitioner joined in the respondents’ Corporation as a conductor on 02.06.1991. Subsequently, his services were regularized from 31.07.1995. Presently, he is working under the control of the 3^rd respondent. While he was conducting the bus service of the 3^rd respondent on 23.09.2012, in between Ramsagar and Erragadda, ex-stages (1-38), a check was taken place at Kompally, stage No. 34. A memo was issued to him stating that he did not collect fare from (3) passengers, who found traveling from stage No.1 to 38 and another (5) passengers traveling stage No.12-38 without a ticket.

4. The (08) passengers were alleged to have been traveling in two batches on the top of the bus. The checking official collected Rs.800/- as a penalty from (8) passengers @ each Rs.100/- apart from collecting the fare amount. For the above allegations, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.09.2012, that these passengers slept over on the top of the bus without his notice and that he had issued tickets for all those who were inside the bus. Therefore, he shall not be made responsible. However, the checking officials falsely implicated him in the case by violating the checking rules prescribed by the 1^st respondent from time to time. However, the 3rd respondent without considering these facts had suspended the petitioner from the service on 04.10.2012 and issued chargesheet on the same day, alleging the following charges:

5. The charges are as follows:

1. "For having violated the rule 'Issue and Start' which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC, Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963".

2. "For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of 03 passengers traveling without tickets having boarded the bus at Ramsagar and bound for Erragadda, ex- states 01 to 03, and another a batch of 05 passengers traveling without tickets having boarded the bus at Ellikal and bound for Erragadda ex-stages no.12 to 38, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963".

3. "For having not closed TIM all denominations upto stage no.34 without completing the above issue of tickets closed the TIM up to stage no.32 only, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963"

6. In respect of the above charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.10.2012, explaining the facts that they boarded over the top of the bus without his notice. The TTI violated the checking rules prescribed in the Chapter 79 of the APSRTC Operational Manual and Circular issued in respect of Job Security of the conductors. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent ordered an enquiry. In the enquiry, the passengers in question, Thirudu Rama Chandram and Mamedla Raju, clearly