(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in Removing the petitioner from service vide Proc: M1/2(13)2009-MPL-I, Dt 30-3-2010, which was modified by the 3td respondent by ordering reinstatement and imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay by 2 incremental stages besides treating the suspension period as not on duty vide Proc. No: PA/19 (98)/2010- Dy.CTM (C), Dt 26-4-2010, which was confirmed by the RM on 17-9-2012, without considering the Acquittal order as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular instructions and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to extend all the benefits for the removal period forthwith

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 50877 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date of hearing of the W.P.)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1996. It is submitted that the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 30.03.2010 on the allegation of having caused a fatal accident. A departmental enquiry was conducted, pursuant to which the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 30.03.2010 removing the petitioner from service.

2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority, by order dated 26.04.2010, set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner, while imposing the punishment of reduction of two increments for a period of two years, which could have an effect on his future increments. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CC.No.452 of 2009 was tried by the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalli, for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, and that the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 08.02.2012. The reduction of basic pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect amounts to a major punishment, which could not have been imposed without framing of charges and without conducting enquiry.

3. The learned standing counsel for the respondent/corporation submits that the appellate authority has considered the case of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds and directed reinstatement. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has passed a reasoned order, and that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case cannot be considered as an absolute ground for absolving the petitioner of all the charges leveled against him. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed a review after a lapse of two and a half years from the date of appellate authority’s order and thereafter filed the present writ petition.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, subsequent to the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the petitioner was advised to file a review before the competent authority, requesting re- consideration of the issue by taking into consideration the order of acquittal passed by the competent Magistrate Court. It is submitted that, having failed to obtain a favourable order in the said review, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent/corporation. Perused the material on record.

6. The short point for consideration is whether the order of appellate authority dated 26.04.2010 requires to be modified or interfered with by this Court.

7. On the facts of the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Driver in the year 1996 and was removed from service vide order dated 30.03.2010 on the allegation of having caused a fatal accident. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner faced trial in CC.No.452 of 2009 and was acquitted by the Magistrate Court.

8. The charges leveled against the petitioner pertaining to causing an accident by resorting to rash and negligent driving. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the appellate authority considered the issue on humanitarian grounds and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. The appellate authority also recorded the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motorcyclist in causing the accident; however, without assigning any reasons, it imposed the punishment of reduction of the basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which could have an effect on the petitioner’s future increments, apart from imposing other terms and conditions for reinstatement. Insofar as the reduction of the petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have effect on his future increments is a major punishment which could not have been imposed by the respondent authority without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

9. In view of the above considerations, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the reduction of the petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall not have any effect on his future increments. It is also made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any monitory benefits. The respondent shall re-fix the pay of the petitioner preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

10. With the above modification, the writ petition stands disposed off. No costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.