AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the Proceedings of 3rd Respondent, dated 01.11.2024, whereby the order of removal passed by 6th Respondent vide Proceedings No.PA/95(78)/24-TNI, dated 27.08.2024, removing Petitioner from the services of the Public Transport Department with effect from 27.08.2024, on the ground of her involvement in serious cash and ticket irregularities, was confirmed.
The case of Petitioner is that, while she was working as a Conductor on Bus No.AP05-Z-0105, plying from Tuni to Rajamahendravaram, on 09.05.2024, at Vannepudi Junction, the bus was checked by the Vigilance Officers, who noticed certain discrepancies. Consequently, Petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her alleging that she had collected amounts of Rs.50/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- from three passengers towards ticket fare at the boarding stage and, instead of issuing valid tickets through the Ticket Issuing Machine (TIM), had issued a handwritten slip bearing her signature for an amount of Rs.80/-.
The aforesaid charge was held proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued proposing the punishment of removal from service, based upon the findings recorded in the enquiry. Upon consideration of the explanation submitted by Petitioner, 6th Respondent passed the order dated 27.08.2024, removing Petitioner from service.
The principal contention of Petitioner is that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and contrary to the punishment prescribed under Circular No.PD01/2019, dated 01.01.2019. Learned Counsel for Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Sub-Clause 2.2.2 of Clause 2.2, relating to “Fare collected ticket not issued (FC)/Fare collected lower denomination issued (FCLD)/issue of unconcerned or old tickets”. It is submitted that, where the amount involved is in excess of Rs.50/- and below Rs.200/-, the misconduct falls under Classification “Major-2”, for which the punishment prescribed is “deferment of increment for two years with cumulative effect/reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, preceded by charge-sheet, besides recovery of ten times the total ticket amount”, and that suspension is not warranted.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that, notwithstanding the punishment specifically prescribed under the aforesaid Circular, Petitioner was placed under suspension and ultimately removed from service. It is, therefore, contended that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and contrary to the guidelines prescribed by the Corporation itself.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.P.S.R.T.C. has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit and submitted that the present incident is not an isolated one. According to Respondents, Petitioner had earlier been involved in similar irregularities on eight other occasions and had been subjected to disciplinary action, including deferment of annual increment for one year without cumulative effect in respect of the incidents dated 24.10.2024 and 20.05.2023. It is, therefore, submitted that the past conduct of Petitioner demonstrates that she had been repeatedly committing similar irregularities and taking the same into consideration, the competent authority imposed the punishment of removal from service.
This Court has carefully perused the original order dated 27.08.2024 and the findings of the Depot Manager dated 17.08.2024. A perusal thereof would disclose that the alleged previous instances of similar misconduct were not taken into consideration either during the enquiry or while imposing the original punishment. The said aspect appears to have been considered for the first time by the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned order dated 01.11.2024. Even in the said order, there are no specific particulars of the alleged previous instances, except a general observation that Petitioner had been involved in similar offences on several occasions and had been punished therefor.
It is also significant to note that no specific details regarding the alleged past misconduct of Petitioner were set out either in the show-cause notice, the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings, or the original order of removal dated 27.08.2024. Thus, the past conduct of Petitioner was not an issue considered in the course of the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the order of removal. Respondents, however, seek to rely upon the said past conduct for the first time in the counter-affidavit as well as in the revisional order.
In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 8 held as under:
“8.The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji:
(1)"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
Thus, when the statutory authority makes an order basing on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the said order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. An order bad in beginning may, by the time it comes to the court on account of challenge, cannot be validated by additional grounds.”
In the present case, though the Circular No.PD01/2019 prescribes the punishment for the proved misconduct falling under Clause 2.2.2, Respondents have sought to justify the extreme punishment of removal by relying upon the alleged previous instances of misconduct, which were not considered in the disciplinary proceedings and were not made part of the original order of removal. The Revisional Authority, therefore, could not have relied upon such undisclosed past conduct, without furnishing Petitioner the particulars thereof and an opportunity to submit her explanation, for the purpose of sustaining the punishment of removal.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the order of removal dated 27.08.2024, though not directly under challenge, having been confirmed in the Appeal Order dated 14.10.2024 and thereafter in the impugned Revision Order dated 01.11.2024, cannot be sustained. The order of removal dated 27.08.2024, the Appeal Order dated 14.10.2024 and the Revision Order dated 01.11.2024 are accordingly, set aside.
However, having regard to the specific contention of Respondents that Petitioner had been involved in several earlier instances of cash and ticket irregularities, Respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, if otherwise permissible in law, by issuing a fresh show-cause notice setting out the relevant particulars and by affording Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of submitting her explanation and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with the applicable Regulations/Circulars and the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.