Disposed

V.R. Reddy v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC13 Jul 2006WP/14083/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposed of a writ petition challenging a punishment of deferment of annual increments without a departmental enquiry. The High Court followed Apex Court precedent holding such a major penalty requires an enquiry and modified the order. Relief granted involved removing the cumulative effect on increments.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order modifying punishment to stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect, with the petitioner not entitled to monetary benefits.

V.R. Reddy 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 : 14083 of 2006

¶4

DATED: 13.7.2006

¶5

Between:

¶6

V.R. Reddy petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Depot Manager, APSRTC Yadagirigutta Bus Depot, Nalgonda district respondent

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 14083 of 2006

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order dated 8.12.1993 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that he is employed as driver in the respondent corporation. While so, he could not attend to duties from 22.6.1993 to 15.09.1993. After joining the duty, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 15.9.1993 alleging unauthorized absence. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 21.9.1993 explaining the reasons for his absence. 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 two years with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 8.12.1993. Hence, the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in imposing the major punishment without conducting a departmental enquiry.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that punishment of deferment of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

It is an admitted fact that the respondent 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 (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.

¶19

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

¶20

the writ petition with the following direction.

¶21

The impugned order dated 8.12.1993 passed by the respondent imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, is modified to that of stoppage of two increments 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.

¶22

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

¶23

_____________ N.V.RAMANA,J

¶24

DATE: 13.07.2006

¶25

TVK

¶26

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO : 14083 of 2006