Partly allowed

V.G.K.Rao, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Gadwal Bus Depot

Telangana HC13 Jul 2006WP/14073/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed a writ petition challenging a departmental order imposing deferment of annual increments with cumulative effect without a departmental enquiry. The court held this constitutes a major penalty and revised the punishment to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect to avoid further litigation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modifying the punishment to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect; petitioner entitled to fixation of pay only.

V.G.K.Rao, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO : 14073 of 2006

¶4

DATED: 13-07-2006

¶5

Between: V.G.K.Rao petitioner And

¶6

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gadwal Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar district Respondent

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 14073 of 2006

¶9

ORAL ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order dated 22.10.1993 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect.

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that he is employed as Conductor in the respondent corporation. While so, on 21.11.1992 a check was exercised and a charge memo was issued to the petitioner alleging cash and ticket irregularities. The petitioner submitted his explanation and having not satisfied with the same, a charge sheet dated 18.9.1993 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges leveled against him. However, without considering the same, and without conducting any enquiry, the impugned final orders were passed imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Hence, the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in imposing the major punishment without conducting a departmental enquiry.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that punishment of deferment of increments for a period of one year with cumulative effect

¶13

is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under the APSRTC Employees’ (CC & A) Regulations. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB^[1] . Learned counsel for petitioner also relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 20609 of 1999 dated 7.12.2005 which is in a similar background of facts and circumstances.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-corporation vehemently opposed the said contention and submitted that second respondent 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.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation.

¶16

It is an admitted fact that the respondent imposed punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year 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 (cited 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 was imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry violating the judgment of Apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶17

In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside leaving it open to respondent to pass fresh orders. But to avoid further litigation in the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of

¶18

the writ petition with the following direction.

¶19

The impugned order dated 22.10.1993 passed by the respondent imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect, is modified to that of stoppage of one 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.

¶20

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

¶21

_____________ N.V.RAMANA,J

¶22

DATE: 13.07.2006

¶23

TVK

¶24

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO : 14073 of 2006

¶26

DATED: 13-07-2006

¶27

[1] 1990 (1) LLJ 635

V.G.K.Rao, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Gadwal Bus Depot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.G.K.Rao, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Gadwal Bus Depot

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

Ollepu Somaiah, Vs The State of A.P.

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

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

V.R. Reddy Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

E.N. Goud Vs The Regional Manager (Hcr)

J.S.Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nagarkurnool Bus Depot