Disposed

T. Chandraiah, v. The Divisional Manager (Dy. Ctm)

Telangana HC17 Jul 2006WP/2705/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an APSRTC Conductor, challenged the withholding of annual increments cumulated for two years without a regular departmental enquiry. The court held that such stoppage is a major penalty requiring enquiry, as per Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the punishment was modified to remove the cumulative effect.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order imposing stoppage with cumulative effect was modified to stoppage without cumulative effect.

T. Chandraiah, Vs The Divisional Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

Writ Petition No.2705 of 2006

¶3

Dated: 17.07.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

T. Chandraiah, S/o Sayappa, Conductor, E.No.93511, R/o 3-2-177, Bhagathsingh Nagar, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶6

.... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The Divisional manager (Dy. CTM), APSRTC, Medak Region, Sangareddy, Medak District and another.

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

Writ Petition No.2705 of 2006

¶12

Order:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings dated 22.12.1998, 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 15.12.1998, alleging that while conducting the bus, he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities on 04.12.1998, 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.2, 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 respondent No.1, which was rejected, by order dated 17.05.1999. 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

¶18

behalf of the respondents-Corporation vehemently opposed the said contention and submitted that respondent No.2, 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.2 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.2 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 22.12.1998, passed by respondent No.2, 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: 17.07.2006 Nsr/Ksr

¶26

1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504

T. Chandraiah, v. The Divisional Manager (Dy. Ctm)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Chandraiah, v. The Divisional Manager (Dy. Ctm)

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

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

Md. Hafeez, Vs The Depot Manager

A.Venkateswarlu Vs Government of a.P.rep.by Secretary to Government

V.Siva Subba Rao, Vs the Regional Manager, Apsrtc

L.L.M.R. Susheela Devi, Vs Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.