Sanjay Kumar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No.1586 of 2007, vide order dated 11.10.2018, the petitioner therein is in appeal.
(2.) The appellant-petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in the year 1988. He was thereafter transferred from Warangal to Vizianagaram as a Deputy Chief Personnel Manager in August, 2004. While working as the Principal, Zonal Staff Training College, APSRTC, Gannavaram, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Charge Sheet dated 31.10.2005, on the ground that while he was the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager of Vizianagaram Zone, he stayed at the APSRTC Guest House at Vizianagaram while irregularly drawing house rental allowance and did not vacate the said Guest House even when he was not in the headquarters, thereby causing inconvenience to other officers who visited Vizianagaram. The erstwhile APSRTC instituted an enquiry into the matter leading to submission of Enquiry Report dated 17.06.2006. The erstwhile APSRTC thereupon issued Office Order dated 18.07.2006 through its Executive Director, Vijayawada and Vizianagaram Zones, whereby he voiced agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on both charges and ordered that the annual increment of the appellant-petitioner be deferred for a period of one year without the effect of postponing his future increments, apart from directing recovery of the house rental allowance of Rs.26,266=40, paid to him from 26.08.2004 to 06.08.2005, from his salary in twelve equal monthly installments.
(3.) Alleging irregularity in procedure, the appellant-petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Managing Director of the erstwhile APSRTC. However, by order dated 28.12.2006, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The initial punishment order dated 18.07.2006 and the appellate order dated 28.12.2006 confirming the same were subjected to challenge in W.P.No.1586 of 2007 by the appellant-petitioner. However, the learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition holding that there was no merit in his contention that the erstwhile APSRTC did not follow the due procedure by furnishing him a copy of the Enquiry Report as only a minor penalty was imposed upon him. The learned Judge observed that in minor penalty proceedings, no enquiry was to be conducted but in spite of the same, the erstwhile APSRTC had done so to give additional benefit of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the non-furnishing of an Enquiry Report would not taint the proceedings, as there was no obligation to even conduct an enquiry in the first instance. On the basis of this reasoning, the learned Judge held against the appellant-petitioner.;