Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs S. Yadagiri Rao,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6192 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                   WRIT APPEAL No.213 of 2019

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel

for the appellants and Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

15.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of W.P.No.40924 of 2014 filed by the respondent as the

writ petitioner.

3. Respondent had filed the related writ petition

assailing the legality and validity of the order dated

28.04.2011 passed by appellant No.2 imposing the penalty

of reduction of pay by two incremental stages having

cumulative effect. By the order dated 15.12.2018, learned

Single Judge took the view that it would meet the ends of

justice if the punishment of reduction of pay by two

incremental stages with cumulative effect is modified to

that of without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the penalty

imposed on the respondent was modified.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no

reasons were assigned by the learned Single Judge while

modifying the aforesaid punishment. However, learned

counsel for the respondent submits that in identical

matters, being W.A.No.474 of 2019, dated 01.09.2022

(Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v.

M. Ashalu) and W.A.No.440 of 2019, dated 17.10.2022

(APSRTC (NOW TSRTC) v. V.Veeraswamy) this Court had

upheld the similar order of the learned Single Judge.

5. Respondent is a driver serving in the establishment of

the appellants. A charge sheet was issued to him on

04.05.2010 alleging that he had committed certain cash

and ticket irregularities which was construed to be a

misconduct within the meaning of the service regulations.

Departmental proceedings were initiated against the

respondent whereafter disciplinary authority passed an

order on 28.10.2010 terminating the respondent from

service. When respondent filed appeal before appellant

No.2, being the appellate authority, the order of

termination from service was set aside, whereafter the

penalty was modified vide the order dated 28.04.2011. It

was contended before the learned Single Judge that by the

order dated 28.04.2011, three penalties were imposed

upon the respondent i.e., i) reduction of pay by two

incremental stages having cumulative effect; ii) period from

the date of removal to reinstatement would be treated as

dies non; iii) respondent was directed to pay an amount of

Rs.500.00 towards security deposit as per the circular

instruction notice.

6. This Court in M. Ashalu's case and V.Veeraswamy's

case (supra) considered the identical facts and noted that

there was gross procedural impropriety in conducting the

domestic enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings. Due

procedure was not followed before imposing the major

penalty. Imposition of such penalty without following the

due process would warrant setting aside the same in its

entirety. However, it was noted that as the respondent had

not questioned the modified punishment, this Court

declined to enter into that aspect of the matter. In the

circumstances, this Court held that learned Single Judge

was justified in modifying the punishment imposed on the

respondent from one having cumulative effect to that of

without cumulative effect.

7. That being the position and following the above

decisions, we are not inclined to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 28.11.2022 vs