Disciplinary actions in employment must be proportional to the proven misconduct, taking into account the employee's track record and overall context.

ORDER :

Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2006 passed by the 1^st respondent, who confirmed the order dated 26.11.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Panakanti Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1987 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.07.1989. On 23.04.2005, while the petitioner was conducting a bus service between Miryalaguda and Suryapet, a surprise check was conducted at stage No.7 and a memo was issued to the petitioner on the same day alleging as follows :-

“a passenger who found travelling from stage No.8 and found alighting at stage No.7 with ticket No.410/21800 of Rs.3/- denomination, but the said ticket was not shown accounted in the SR and SR was confiscated."

(b) The petitioner submitted explanation to the said Memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent suspended him from service on 03.05.2005 and issued charge-sheet on the same day alleging as follows:-

"For having closed the STAR No.022/383917, dt. 23.04.05 up to stage No.7 though issued the ticket bearing No.410/218100 of Rs.3/- deno., to a passenger who boarded the bus at stage No.8 i.e., Garidepally and Ponugode i.e., stage No.7, without accountal of the said ticket and also punched the stages on 8 & 6 instead of 8 to 7, which shows gross negligence and misconduct on your part under Reg. 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.”

(b) The petitioner submitted explanation to the said charge-sheet. Not satisfied with the said explanation, the respondents ordered an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry, held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Based on the enquiry report, the 3^rd respondent vide proceedings dated 26.08.2005 imposed the punishment of removal from service and that the suspension period was treated as 'not on duty'. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who inturn modified the removal order dated 26.08.2005 passed by the 3^rd respondent as reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which shall have cumulative effect on his future increments and that the period from the date of removal till he reports for duty at newly posted depot is treated as "Not on Duty" vide order, dated 26.11.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a review before the 1st respondent and the same was rejected on 24.03.2006. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to attribute any malafides on the part of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, erroneously passed the removal order, dated 26.08.2005. On appeal, the 2^nd respondent without setting aside the removal order dated 26.08.2005 in its entirety, modified the removal order imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which shall have cumulative effect on his future increments. The period from the date of removal till he reports for duty at newly posted depot is treated as "Not on Duty". On review, the 1^st respondent, without considering the contentions advanced by the petitioner, erroneously rejected on 24.03.2006.

5. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petiti