S Sreedhar Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)

W.A.No.607 of 2025 is directed against the orders in W.P.No.38388 of 2018, dated 26.07.2022. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant.

The writ petition was filed with a prayer for issuing a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 in Proc.No.AMP/1927/2017NZ, dated 05.03.2018, rejecting the appeal as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to set aside the removal order passed by respondent No.6 against the petitioner and to reinstatement him into service.

The appeal is filed with a delay of 852 days and I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed with a prayer to condone the delay. The reasons stated by the petitioner for the delay in his affidavit are:

(i). He has instructed his advocate to file the appeal and he has asked him to pay the expenses and fee.

(ii). Since the petitioner / appellant is unemployed, he could not raise the funds to pay the fee and was attending daily wage work and made small savings for meeting the expenses.

(iii). Hence, there is delay.

Respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed the counter affidavit. The objections of the respondents are that:

(i). The discrepancy committed by the appellant / petitioner was reported on 07.07.2011.

(ii). The appellant preferred his review petition before the Executive Director, Nellore Zone, on 08.06.2017 after a lapse of four years of rejection of the appeal by the concerned authority.

(iii). The learned Single Judge passed orders on 26.07.2022. The limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days after passing the order in Writ Petition.

(iv). The present appeal is filed with a delay of 852 days.

(v). From that date to this date of filing the Writ Appeal, the appellant sustained his life on his personal earnings. Therefore, the appellant is deprived of funds is not correct.

(vi). No tenable reason is canvassed for condone the delay.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the writ petitioner” and “the respondents” as per their ranking in the Writ Petition.

[i] He was working as a driver in A.P.S.R.T.C at Tirupathi Depot. suspension order dated 27.04.2012 was issued stating that he had committed an act of defrauding the legitimate revenue of the Corporation by printing and selling fake tickets of Rs.30/- denomination in Bus No. AP 28 Z 5607, Tirumala-Tirupathi Link Tickets, colluding with one V.L.N. Modali, who was working as Conductor of Tirumala Depot, vide proceedings No.Dy.C.T.M., Tpt.No.01/804(2)11, R.M.T, dated 17.05.2012.

[ii] He has submitted his explanation dated 17.09.2011 to respondent No.4. Subsequently, respondent No.6 authority, vide proceedings No. steno/95/(1)/2011-Dy.CTM(T), dated 22.08.2011, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, stating that there were contradictory statements in charge sheet filed by the Police and the charge memo issued by the Department with regard to printing and selling of fake tickets by colluding with VL.N. Modali for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, acquitted the petitioner and another, while finding them not guilty of the above offences. However, the appeal of petitioner was rejected vide proceedings dated 05.03.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition was filed.

[i] it was clearly established that the petitioner and V.L.N. Modali, conductor of Tirumala Depot, colluded and printed and showed fake tickets of Rs.30/- denomination of Tirumala-Tirupati link tickets at Tirumala down bus station and at Rambhageecha point during night times for their personal gain and pocketed the legitimate revenues of the Corporation.

[ii] The petitioner has preferred a review petition on 08.06.2017, after a lapse of four years as against the appeal and ten months as against the judgment in C.C.No.406 of 2012, dated 08.08.2016. As per the procedure, review petition has to be preferred within two months from the date of receipt of the appeal.

[iii] It is a case of serious misappropriation committed by the petitioner by printing and selling fake Tirumala-Tiruapati link tickets.

[iv] Principles of natural justice were followed at each and every stage by giving all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case.

[v] One of the passengers of Bus No.AP 28 Z 5607 of Tirupati Depot, who bought fake ticket of Rs.30/- denomination, has given statement that he had purchased E4 tickets bearing No.004/898069 to 69 to 072 of Rs.30/- denomination by paying Rs.120/- at Rambageecha point and travelled in the same bus.

[vi] The bus was checked at Alipiri toll gate and the bus tickets were confiscated by the checking officials.

[i] Criminal law requires that the charges levelled against the petitioner must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charges and any deficiency and element of doubt will go against the prosecution. On the contrary, departmental proceedings are with reference to the conduct of the employer and continuation of the relationship of employee and employer, which shall be based on the trust and confidence of the employer in the employee.

[ii] Even if the employer has an element of doubt on the conduct and character of the employee, the employer may not be willing to continue the employee in his service. However, before taking action against an employee in public service, the employer is required to follow due process and on establishment of the charges levelled against the employee, appropriate punishment can be imposed.

[iii] If the employee admits of the allegations made against him, there is no need to conduct an enquiry and the employee can straightaway be dismissed. An admission made in any form can be used against any employee to hold him guilty.

[iv] As per Regulation 10 of the APSRTC Employee (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, the punishment of removal can be imposed. As per observation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in 1) Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao^{11.2012(2) SCJ 712 (D.B)} 2) Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. H. Amaresh^{22.2006 LawSuit (SC) 554} the appreciation of the domestic enquiry in contrast to the acquittal recorded in criminal proceedings, when examined no error is found in the proceedings of respondent No.2 and accordingly the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

[i] The charges both in the criminal case and departmental enquiry are viz. the printing and selling of fake tickets.

[ii] The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat^{33.(2006) 5 SCC 446} held that when a criminal case on the same charges results in acquittal on merits, disciplinary proceedings must be re-evaluated, as continued punishment may be unjust.

[iii] The learned Single Judge overlooked the procedural irregularities in the disciplinary enquiry The seizure of tickets from passengers had 8 decimal places, from those which were sent for expert analysis are 9 and only 30 of 100 tickets were found fake. These inconsistencies are noted in the criminal Court‟s judgment but were not addressed in the enquiry. There was no adequate opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses i.e. P.W.10 as a passenger.

[iv] The rejection of the review was arbitrary and mechanical.

[v] The leaned Single Judge failed to consider the acquittal as new evidence.

[vi] The „seriousness‟ of charges and delay are considered and given more importance than the impact of the acquittal.

[vii] The two-month limit for filing a review is not absolute.

[viii] The removal from service for an unproven allegation of selling 30 fake tickets was disproportionate and warrants judicial interference.

[ix] The criminal Court‟s acquittal was not merely technical but substantive, highlighting the prosecution failure to prove the forgery or cheating.

[x] The authorities relied on by the learned Single Judge i.e. Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao (1 supra) etc. are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the present factual scenario.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the orders under challenge are sustainable on any test and that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is well founded and does not warrant any interference.

In the context stated above, the points fit to be considered are:

Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay?

Whether the findings of the learned Single Judge require interference?

Unemployment and poverty etc. were stated as reasons which are exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner, since he is not shown to any other employment. Since it is not shown that he is having any other sources, although the financial difficulty may not be the sole ground, in the context of the case, as his mere survival during the period from suspension till filing of the writ appeal cannot be the whole and sole basis to accept the objection of the respondent. Therefore, this Court found that the delay can be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the cases. Whereby, the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2025 is fit to be allowed. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

The proceedings dated 05.03.2018, which sought to be reviewed are questioned in the writ petition. The review was presented on 08.06.2017. The departmental enquiry report is dated 22.03.2012. Basing on the evidence and statements of the witnesses, after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner / delinquent, the enquiry was conducted. Further, the proceedings rejecting the appeal are dated 15.06.2013. The judgment of criminal Court is dated 08.08.2016. Basing on the evidence available, the departmental enquiry was proceeded with and conclusions were drawn. The person examined and cited as P.W.10 in the criminal case, said to be the passenger for whom the fake tickets were recovered and P.W.10 is said to have stated that the person present at the bus door saw the ticket and sent him inside the bus.

The appellant has relied on additional material. The enquiry report was filed dated 22.03.2012. The evidence relied on is referred to, indicating that an opportunity to cross-examine the statements given by the witnesses were given. Charge No.1 was relating to printing and selling of Rs.30/-denomination fake tickets. Witnesses i.e. V.V. Naidu, T.M. Chandra, P.R. Khan, K. Surendra and G. Venkateswarlu were examined. The Writ Petitioner stated in the preliminary enquiry that his friend Sri V.L.N. Modali, conductor of TML depot supplied Rs.30/- denomination fake tickets and he used to sell them at the down bus station, Tirumala and Rambageecha point, Tirumala during night shifts. Per shift, he used to sell two fake ticket blocks of Rs.30/- denomination and he will earn Rs.6,000/- and will hand-over Rs.5,000/- to V.N.L. Modali and keep Rs.1,000/- for his personal gain. It is also referred in the proceedings that on the information of the writ petitioner and his guidance, the vigilance team went to the house of V.L.N. Modali and found fake tickets, computer equipments and seized them.

P.W.12, the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory deposed that has examined the material and sent the opinion that the tickets are not genuine.

[i] On the ground that from which counters the passengers purchased the tickets is not stated by the witnesses, the doubt was entertained by the learned Judge dealing with the criminal case. For want of material as to accused No.1, V.L.N. Modali selling the tickets, reasonable doubt was entertained.

[ii] Finally, by extending the benefit of doubt, the accused was acquitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate who handled the criminal case.

[iii] The review was filed on 08.06.2017, enclosing the criminal case judgment. The proceedings impugned in the writ petition are the orders passed in the review dated 05.03.2018.

[iv] In the review petition, there is reference to the facts of the case, preliminary enquiry report, gravity of the charge, contention of the writ petitioner and judgment in C.C.No.405 of 2012, dated 08.08.2016. The findings in the review are that:

(1). The evidence is indicating that petitioner agreed that one V.L.N. Modali, after printing the fake tickets, supplied blocks to the petitioner for sale and getting benefits and the petitioner himself could inform the availability of the tickets and material in the house of V. L. N. Modali, where the vigilance team went to the house of V.L.N. Modali and found the ticket material etc.

(2). Further, the acquittal is because of the failure of the prosecution but not otherwise. The review orders would clearly show that the observations in the judgment other evidence available and which had already been considered while passing the original orders are marshalled and respondent No.2 has passed orders in review appreciating the material, including the judgment of the criminal Court.

Further, the orders in the writ petition also would show that there is proper appreciation of the necessary material and the legal position as to the scope of enquiry in criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry, nature of enquiry, standard of proof required etc. with reference to precedential guidance.

Therefore, no grounds are found to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge. Point No.2 framed is answered accordingly, against the appellant.

In the result,

(i). The delay in filing the Writ Appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed.

(ii). W.A.No.607 of 2025 is dismissed.

(iii). There shall be no order as to costs.

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