Disposed

Md. Nayeemuddin, E-85915, Conductor, v. The Apsrtc rep by Regional Manager

Telangana HC14 Jun 2005WP/12410/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an impugned order imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment without a regular enquiry, relying on Kulwant Singh Gill. However, the petitioner was denied back wages due to approach after a delay of nearly five years.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of deferment of increment without enquiry set aside; no order on back wages.

Md. Nayeemuddin, E-85915, Conductor, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12410 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

Md. Nayeemuddin, E-85915,

¶9

Conductor, Rajendranagar Depot, R/o Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The APSRTC rep by Regional Manager

¶13

Ranga Reddy Region at JBS, Secunderabad 2 The APSRTC., rep by Divisional Manager (CRMR)

¶14

O/o the Divisional Manager, Koti, Hyderabad 3 The APSRTC., rep by its Depot manager Rajendranagar,

¶15

Ranga Reddy District District

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents herein in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 18 months with cumulative effect without holding any departmental enquiry vide Proc. No. 02/(42)/97-RJNR, dt.19-9-2000, which was confirmed by the 2^nd respondent herein vide proc, No. PA/19(137)/2000-DVM (CRMR), Hyderabad, dt.30-11-2000, as illegal, unjust, contrary to well established principles of law and as such liable to be set a side by further directing the

¶18

respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by adding the deferred increment w.e.f.19-9-2000 and as to pay the arrears forthwith.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD, Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

¶21

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the imposition of punishment of deferment of increment for a period of 18 months with cumulative effect.

¶24

2 . According to the petitioner, the said punishment, which is a major punishment, was imposed without conducting a regular enquiry, therefore, sought for setting aside the said impugned order which was confirmed by the appellate authority on 30-11-2000.

¶25

3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶26

4. Prima-facie, the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that with holding of the increment with cumulative effect as the same is major penalty and the same cannot be imposed without conducting any enquiry in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and on that simple ground the impugned order is set aside. However, it is open to the respondent-organization to take appropriate action, if it so chooses, with reference to the charges basing on which the punishment was imposed. As the petitioner has approached this Court nearly after five years, he is not entitled for back wages on account of the setting aside of the impugned order.

¶27

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶28

S.ANANDA REDDY, J

¶29

14^th June, 2005 SKM To

¶30

1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ranga Reddy Region at JBS, Secunderabad 2 The Divisional Manager (CRMR), APSRTC, O/o the Divisional Manager, Koti, Hyderabad 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District District 4 2 CD copies

Md. Nayeemuddin, E-85915, Conductor, v. The Apsrtc rep by Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Nayeemuddin, E-85915, Conductor, v. The Apsrtc rep by Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Kausalya Vs The District Collector, Nellore

T.Srinivas Vs Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

O. Venkateswarlu, Vs the Apsrtc, rep. by its Vice Chairman and M.D.

A.Satya Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Commissioner

M.Suresh kumar, Vs Addl.Registering Authority and Secretary

M.S. Bhaskar, Vs The General Manager