Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 367 (TS)

B. Chandraiah v. RTC

2023-06-05

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2023
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. (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 documentary evidence into consideration,for imposition of major punishment and under these circumstances, the 2nd respondent ought to have allowed the appeal without imposing any punishment as such. B.Shankaraiah, before the enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer and the Appellate and Review Authority had failed to take the oral and documentary evidence into consideration,for imposition of major punishment and under these circumstances, the 2nd respondent ought to have allowed the appeal without imposing any punishment as such. (i) The impugned punishment is without any basis and is liable to be set aside as it is well settled principle that punishment should not commensurate to the Gravity of the charges and allegations and should not go far beyond and in the case of the petitioner, imposition of deferment of annual increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect is beyond the charge. Hence the Writ Petition is filed. 4. No counter has been filed by any of the respondents till date. 5. PERUSED THE RECORD: (a) The order impugned dated 29.01.2005 vide APSRTC No.PA/19(129)/2004-DVM:JGTL of the 2nd respondent reads as under: “This is an appeal preferred by Sri.B.Chandraiah.E:675333. Ex-Driver of Jagtial Depot to set-aside the orders of Removal from service passed by DM/JGTL Vide reference 1st cited. CHARGE: “For having un-authorisedly allowed and carried the prohibited Teak wood on the top of your service bus No.AP1OZ 1872 on 5-5-2004 while you were performing duty and coming from Mangela to Jagtial, for which a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed by the Forest officials, Sarangapur and you have paid the same and issued receipt on your name vide receipt No.866361,Dt: 5-5-2004 of Forest Section Officer Sarangapur which constitutes to mis-conduct under Reg.28(xv)&(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” The appellant in his appeal has stated that on 4.5.2004 he performed all the trips and made nightout at Mangela slept at Grampanchayat office. Started at the early hours 06-00 AM from Mangela towards Jagtial. The person who loaded the teak wood has not informed about the loading on the top of the bus and he doesn't know up to its unloading. The person who loaded the teak wood pieces has kept in the centre top of bus and visible for the ground as such he is not detected. While unloading those teak wood pieces at Konapur he went to catch the person. Meanwhile, the forest personnel came and caught hold those person who in turn paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on my name and He is innocent in this case. While unloading those teak wood pieces at Konapur he went to catch the person. Meanwhile, the forest personnel came and caught hold those person who in turn paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on my name and He is innocent in this case. He finally requested to consider the above facts and reinstate him into service. Perused the Appeal and Subject case, together with personal records. It is observed that on 5-5-2004 while appellant is performing the duty on the route Mangela to Jagitial with bus No.AP10Z 1872 he unauthorisedly allowed and carried prohibited Teak wood sizes on the top of the bus. At Konapur officials detected teak wood and imposed a fine Rs.10,000/- and issued receipt No.866361,Dt:5-5-2004 on the named driver. AM(E)/KRMR conducted a detailed enquiry into case wherein the charges levelled against the appellant is held proved and the punishment imposed by the DM/JGTL is justified. However, on perusal it is observed that this is the first removal case in his (8) years of service and he has maintained a good record. In view of the above, purely on humanitarian grounds, a lenient view is taken and the appeal is “CONSIDERED.” 1. On consideration of the appeal the appellant is reinstated in to service and posted to SIRCILLA DEPOT. 2. His pay is reduced by TWO INCREMENTAL STAGES for a period of TWO YEARS WITH CUMMULATIVE EFFECT. 3. He should report to the DM::SRCL within (7) days from the date of receipt of these proceedings, failing which the orders stands cancelled. 4. The period from the date of removal till he reports for duty shall be treated as NOT ON DUTY for ALL PURPOSES. 5. He shall be directed for Medical fitness to the APSRTC Tarnaka hospital. The appeal is considered to the extent ordered above. 4. The period from the date of removal till he reports for duty shall be treated as NOT ON DUTY for ALL PURPOSES. 5. He shall be directed for Medical fitness to the APSRTC Tarnaka hospital. The appeal is considered to the extent ordered above. (b) The charge framed against the petitioner as per the proceedings of the Depot Manager, Jagital dated 17.05.2004 is as follows: “For having un-authorisedly allowed and carried the prohibited Teak wood on the top of your service bus No.AP1OZ 1872 on 5-5-2004 while you were performing duty and coming from Mangela to Jagtial, for which a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed by the Forest officials, Sarangapur and you have paid the same and issued receipt on your name vide receipt No.866361,Dt: 5-5-2004 of Forest Section Officer Sarangapur which constitutes to mis-conduct under Reg.28(xv)&(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” (c) The relevant portion of the Office order dated 16.11.2004 reads as under: “I therefore, hereby order that your annual increment when next falls due be deferred for a period of one (1) year which will not have affect on your future increments.” 6. The challenge to the order impugned dated 29.01.2005 of the 2nd respondent is mainly on the following grounds: 1. The impugned punishment is without any basis and hence, is liable to be set aside. 2. Imposition of punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect is definitely far beyond the charge and therefore, punishment imposed did not commensurate to the gravety of the charge and went for behind. 3. The Enquiry Officer, the Appellate Authority and Review Authority failed to take into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and imposed major punishment. 4. The petitioner’s explanation to the show cause notice dated 15.10.2004, was not considered at all and the petitioner was removed from service with immediate effect unilaterally, irrationally. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 7. At para 6 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner as follows: “I respectfully submit that inspite of my specific plea that I along with the conductor were sleeping in the Grampanchayat of Mangela in the night and I was not aware of the loading the teakwood on the top of the bus and the same was also admitted by the said person before the enquiry officer. None of the officials including the Enquiry Officer, Appellate and Review Authority failed to take into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and imposed major punishment. Under these circumstances the 2nd respondent ought to have allowed the appeal without imposing any punishment. Hence imposing punishment of “Reduction of pay by Two Incremental Stages for a period of Two years with cumulative effect” amounts to major punishment.” 8. A bare perusal of the order of removal of the Depot Manager, Jagtial dated 01.11.2004 vide proceedings No. 01/535(11)/2004-JGTL, clearly indicates that the explanation dated 22.10.2004 furnished by the petitioner in response to show cause notice of removal from service vide proceedings dated 15.10.2004 was not considered at all by the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager, Jagtial and the order impugned dated 01.11.2004 had been passed unilaterally, against the petitioner removing the petitioner from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect. The petitioner preferred appeal dated 04.11.2004 against the order of removal of the petitioner dated 01.11.2004 to the 2nd respondent herein and the 2nd respondent took a lenient view and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner into service and posted to Sircilla Depot reducing the petitioner’s pay to two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide the order impugned dated 29.01.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent herein. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings on record proceedings of the 3rd respondent herein dated 16.11.2004 which is the punishment imposed on Sri B.Shankaraiah, Conductor, Jagtial Depot for having unauthorizedly carried prohibited teak wood on the top of the bus in a bus driven by Sri B.Chandraiah, the petitioner herein and the same indicates that the punishment imposed was conductor’s annual increment, when next falls due be deferred for a period of one year, which will not have an effect on his future increments. 10. 10. This Court taking into consideration the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 16.11.2004 and also the specific averments made by the petitioner in para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, (referred to and extracted above), opines that the respondents need to reconsider their decision dated 29.01.2005, therefore the respondents herein are directed to reconsider the decision/order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.01.2005 vide APSRTC Proc.No:PA/19(129)/2004 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order duly taking into consideration the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent on the conductor, named one Sri B. Shankaraiah, dated 16.11.2004 and also the explanation of the petitioner dated 22.10.2004 submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice of removal from service vide proceedings dated 15.10.2004 and also the clear observation’s passed in favour of the petitioner herein in the order impugned dated 29.01.2005 of the 2nd respondent vide APSRTC Proc.No.PA/19 (129)/2004, holding that the petitioner maintained a good record and it was the first time in petitioners eight years service, petitioner had to face the order of Removal passed against the petitioner and pass appropriate order’s duly communicating the decision to the petitioner herein and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.