K RAMANAIAH Vs. DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC KANIGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT: This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the Regional Manager, Nellore, dated 3-11-1986 confirming the punishment of with holding of annual increment for a period of one year which shall have an effect on future increments. This punishment relates an incident which took place on 14-7-1985 when the petitioner was functioning as a Conductor in Bus No. AAZ 4701 on the route of Kanigiri to Hyderabad. It appears that on the way at Markapuram 54 passengers got into the bus and the petitioner stopped the bus at the outskirts of the village and was issuing the tickets. At that time TTls inspected the bus and charged the petitioner for not issuing the tickets to four passengers. The petitioner protested by stating that he was yet to complete the issue of tickets, and hence, the charge was untenable. This was supported by the passengers as well as the D.S.P., who happen to pass that way and hence the inspecting staff went away. But later, a charge sheet was issued on 31 -7-85 framing the following charges:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no application of mind on the part of the respondents to the evidence on record particularly with reference to the statements given by the passengers, and hence, the finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct was untenable. Secondly, it was submitted that the punishment of stoppage of increment with an effect on future increments was a major penalty as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1) 1990(6) SLR 73 which requires a regular enquiry, and therefore, absence of such enquiry vitiated the entire proceedings.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders of the authorities concerned and submitted that the very fact that four ticketless passengers were found in the bus when the inspection took place indicated that the misconduct was proved and since the petitioner did not have a clean record, the punishment was proper. It was also submitted that the stoppage of increment did not amount to a major punishment, and hence, the impugned order should be upheld.