Partly allowed

k.s. reddy S/o yadav Reddy v. The Regional manager, Apsrtc.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2006WP/14038/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that withholding annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty requiring a departmental enquiry. Without such enquiry, the order was illegal and had to be modified to stoppage without cumulative effect.

What did the court decide?

The order stopping annual increment for two years with cumulative effect is modified to impose only stoppage without cumulative effect.

k.s. reddy S/o yadav Reddy Vs The Regional manager… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

Writ Petition No.14038 of 2006

¶3

Dated: 11.07.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

K.S. Reddy, S/o Yadav Reddy, Conductor, E.57820, C/o Jangaon Bus Depot, Warangal District.

¶6

.... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal Region, Warangal District and others.

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

Writ Petition No.14038 of 2006

¶12

Order:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings dated 20.04.2002, withholding the annual increment of the petitioner for a period of two years with cumulative effect, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in APSRTC. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 11.01.2002, alleging that while conducting the bus, he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities on 27.12.2001, and that he was required to submit the explanation, as to why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, for which he submitted explanation denying the charges framed against him. Respondent No.3, without conducting any regular departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity, passed the impugned order imposing punishment of withholding the annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that stoppage of increments of an employee with cumulative effect is a major penalty, and the same cannot be imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under the APSRTC Employees’ (CC&A) Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in

¶16

“Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab¹ ” .

¶17

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Corporation vehemently opposed the said

¶18

contention and submitted that respondent No.3, after careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record together with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has passed the impugned order, hence, no reasons to interfere with the same.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶20

It is an admitted fact that respondent No.3 imposed punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment. Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted though the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. The apex Court in “Kulwanth Singh Gill’s Case (1 supra) held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed without conducting the departmental enquiry. Since the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years was imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry violating the judgment of the apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶21

In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside leaving it open to respondent No.3 to pass fresh orders, but to avoid further litigation in the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction.

¶22

The impugned order dated 20.04.2002, passed by respondent No.3, imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, is modified to that of stoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out of this order, but shall be entitled to fixation of pay only.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶25

Date: 11.07.2006

¶26

Nsr/Ksr

¶27

1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504

k.s. reddy S/o yadav Reddy v. The Regional manager, Apsrtc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

k.s. reddy S/o yadav Reddy v. The Regional manager, Apsrtc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Chakrapani, Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh

The District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Vs The Presiding Officer, labour Court-Iii, Hyderabad

Mulakala omaraiah (Ec No. 0977312) Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

M. Satyanarayana Murthy S/o M. Gopala Krishna Vs Chief General Manager (Hrd)

K. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ollepu Somaiah, Vs The State of A.P.