Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J.
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Proc. No. AMP/1927/2017NZ, dated 05.03.2018 reject appeal by the office of the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the law and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to set aside the orders of removal from service passed by 6th respondent and reinstate the petitioner into service and pass any such other or further orders......."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as driver in APSRTC at Tirupati Depot. The respondent authorities issued suspension order dated 27.4.2012 stating that he committed for having defrauded the legitimate revenue of the Corporation by printing and selling of fake tickets of Rs. 30/- denomination in Bus No. AP28Z 5607, Tirumala-Tirupathi link tickets colluding with one V.L.N. Modali who is working as Conductor of Tirumala Depot vide proceedings No. Dy. CTM., Tpt. No. 01/804(2)11, R.M.T., dated 17.5.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 17.9.2011 to the 4th respondent authority. Subsequently, the 6th respondent authorities 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 the 2nd respondent stating that there is contradictory statements in police filed charge sheet and the charge memo issued by the department with regard to selling of fraud tickets by colluding with one V.L.N. Modali for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati acquitted the petitioner and another as found not guilty for the offences under the above Sections. However, the 2nd respondent was rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide proceedings No. AM(P)/19(27)/2017-NZ, dated 05.03.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents while denying all the averments made in the petition contended that aggrieved by the removal order the petitioner preferred appeal to the 3rd respondent-Regional Manager, Tirupati and the same was rejected vide proceedings No. PA/19(82)/2013-RM(T), dated 15.06.2013 since it was clearly established that the petitioner and Sri V.L.N. Modali, conductor of Triumala depot colluded with each other, printed and sold out the 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. It is also stated that the petitioner has preferred review petition to the 2nd respondent on 08.06.2017 after lapse of 4 years as against the appeal and 10 months as against the judgment in C.C. No. 406 of 2012 dated 08.08.2016. As per the procedure in vogue, one has to prefer review petition within two months from the date of receipt of the appeal proceedings. The same was also rejected by the respondent due to seriousness of the misappropriation committed by the petitioner by printing and selling of fake Tirumala-Tirupati Link tickets of RS. 30/- denomination tickets colluded with another conductor of Tirumala depot and also for late submission of review petition after lapse of 4 years. It is stated that in this case principles of natural justice were followed at each and every stage and given all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case. One of the passenger of bus No. AP 28Z 5607 of Tirupati Depot who bought fake ticket of Rs. 30/- denomination, has given statement that he has purchased E4 tickets bearing No. 004/898069 to 072 of Rs. 30/- denomination by paying Rs. 120/- at Rambageecha point and they were travelled in the same bus. The bus was checked at Alpiri toll gate and confiscated the above tickets by the checking officials. The petitioner has misappropriated the legitimate revenues of the Corporation and tarnished the image of the corporation. Hence, there are no merits in the petition and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the CC No. 405 of 2012 and no such incident was happened as stated by the prosecution.
According to the prosecution, out of 100 fake tickets only 30 tickets are found to be fake and out of which police have sent two tickets initially to expert, remaining tickets were sent to expert subsequently which clearly disclosed that the alleged tickets seized from the passengers did not tally with the tickets which were sent to the expert. He further submits that the enquiry officer or any respondent authority have not followed the law and facts. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Raj Narain v. Union of India and others AIR Online 2019 SC 155, wherein it was held in paras 7 and 8, reads as under:
"7. The point that remains to be considered is whether the Appellant is entitled to payment of full wages between 1979 and 1987. The Appellant was placed under suspension on 23.10.1979 and his suspension was revoked on 21.10.1987. An interesting development took place during the interregnum by which the disciplinary proceedings were dropped on 21.03.1983. It is clear from the record that the Appellant was the one who was seeking postponement of the departmental inquiry in view of the pendency of criminal case. The order of suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. By virtue of the disciplinary proceedings being dropped, the Appellant becomes entitled to claim full salary for the period from the date of his suspension till the date of closure of the departmental inquiry. Thereafter, the Respondents took four years to reinstate him by revoking his suspension. The order of suspension dated 23.10.1979 came to an end on 21.03.1983 which is the date on which disciplinary proceedings were dropped. The Appellant ought to have been reinstated immediately thereafter unless a fresh order was passed, placing him under suspension during the pendency of the criminal trial which did not happen. Ultimately, the Appellant was reinstated by an order dated 21.10.1987 by revocation of the order of suspension. Though, technically, the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in submitting that the impugned judgment does not even refer to the I.A., we are not inclined to remit the matter to the
High Court at this stage for fresh consideration of this point. We hold that the Appellant is entitled for full wages from 23.10.1979 to 21.10.1987 after adjustment of the amounts already paid towards subsistence allowance.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, we approve the judgment of the High Court by holding that the Appellant shall be entitled for back wages only from the date of acquittal on 31.08.2001, till the date of his reinstatement on 20.01.2003. Further, the Appellant shall be entitled to full salary from 23.10.1979 to 21.10.1987."
In another case reported in M/s. Somani Steels Ltd. and another v. Collector of Central Excise and others 2001 AAIR SCW 5069, wherein it was held that dismissal after 8 years on ground of alternative remedy of appeal-not proper." The facts of the above case are not applicable to the present facts of the case.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao 2012(2) SCJ 712 (D.B.), wherein it was held that:
"Supreme Court reviewed the entire case law on the subject and held that even if a person stood acquitted by criminal Court, domestic enquiry can be held, as standard of proof required in domestic enquiry and that in a criminal case are altogether different. In criminal case, standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt while in domestic enquiry it is the preponderance of probabilities that constitutes the test to be applied. (Para 11).
In Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. H. Amaresh 2006 LawSuit (SC) 554, wherein it was held that:
"16. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal."
In a case of Depot Manager, APSRTC vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad 2006 (8) SCJ 837, wherein it was held that:
"It is also not open to the Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the one arrived at the domestic Tribunal. In the instant case, the opinion arrived at by the Corporation was rightly accepted by the Tribunal but not by the Court. We, therefore, hold that the order of reinstatement passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is contrary to the law on the basis of a catena of decisions of this Court. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or sympathy on the part of the judicial forums for interfering with the quantum of punishment of removal which cannot be justified. Similarly, the High Court can modify the punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India only when it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved."
7. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to briefly consider the scope of the acquittal granted by the competent criminal court vis-à-vis disciplinary action taken against an employee.
8. Criminal law requires that the charges leveled against a person must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charges. Any deficiency and element of doubt will go against the prosecution. On the contrary, departmental proceedings are with reference to conduct of the employee and continuation of the relationship of employee and employer. The relationship of employee-employer is based on trust and confidence of the employer on the employee. Even if the employer has an element of doubt on the conduct and character of the employee, 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 charges leveled against him appropriate punishment can be imposed. In domestic enquiry on the charges leveled against the employee what is required is preponderance of probabilities of the charges leveled against him. If employee admits of the allegations made against him, there is no need to conduct enquiry and employee can straight away be dismissed. An admission made in any form can be used against him to hold him guilty. Circumstantial evidence can be taken into consideration to hold that the charge is proved and to impose appropriate punishment. Thus, nature of evidence required in the departmental proceedings is quite different from the nature of evidence that is required in criminal proceedings.
9. As per Regulation 10 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963:
10. Authority competent to impose penalties:
"(1) The Corporation may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 8 of employee.
(2) without prejudice to the provisions of clause (1), any of the penalties specified regulation 8 may be imposed on an employee by the appointing authority or any other authority authorized by a regulation or resolution of the Corporation, subject to such conditions, limitations, if any, as may be specified.
Explanation: The expression 'appointing authority' means the authority competent to most substantive appointment to the post held by the employee for the time.
(3) Wherein any case a higher authority has imposed or declined to impose a penalty under this regulation, a lower authority shall have no jurisdiction to proceed under regulation in respect of the same case."
10. In view of the foregoing reasons and upon observing the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Court finds no error in the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Proc. No. AP(P)/19(27)/2017-NZ, dated 05.03.2018, which is impugned in the present writ petition. As such, the same warrants no interference from this Court.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
