Partly allowed

Md. Hafeez, v. The Depot Manager

Telangana HC14 Jul 2006WP/14369/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Hon'ble Court held that the stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty requiring a regular departmental enquiry. Since the respondent imposed the punishment without such enquiry, violating the Supreme Court's judgment in Kulwanth Singh Gill's Case, the court quashed the order. To avoid further litigation, the court modified the punishment to s

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.03.1994 was quashed and modified to stoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect.

Md. Hafeez, Vs The Depot Manager — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

Writ Petition No.14369 of 2006

¶3

Dated: 14.07.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

Md. Hafeez, C/o Shamshu, Driver, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

¶6

.... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sattupally, Nalgonda District.

¶9

.....RESPONDENT

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

Writ Petition No.14369 of 2006

¶12

Order:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 24.03.1994, withholding the annual increment of the petitioner for a period of one year with cumulative effect, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

The petitioner is employed as a Driver in APSRTC. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 07.12.1993, alleging that the bus driven by him was met with an accident on 08.11.1993, 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. The respondent, 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 one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner 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 “Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab¹ ” .

¶16

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on

¶17

behalf of the respondent-Corporation vehemently opposed the said contention and submitted that the 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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 (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 one year was imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry violating the judgment of the apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶20

In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside leaving it open to the respondent 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.

¶21

The impugned order dated 24.03.1994, passed by the respondent, imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year 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.

¶22

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

¶23

___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶24

Date: 14.07.2006 Nsr/Grk

¶25

1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504

Md. Hafeez, v. The Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Hafeez, v. The Depot 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

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

V.R. Reddy Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

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

J.K. Rao Conductor, E-93735, S/o Sri Ramulu Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc., Krishna Region

Adapa Rama Rao Vs The Personnel Officer, East Godavari Region

K.Subba Rao, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc