Allowed

B. Ramdass, S/o. Jagath Ram, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc.

Telangana HC3 Feb 2010WP/1205/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court allowed a petition by an APSRTC driver challenging the imposition of major disciplinary punishment (deferment of increments) without a prior enquiry. Relying on Kulwant Singh Gill, the Court held such penalty per se illegal when imposed without an enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 24.08.1999, 08.09.1999 and 05.08.2000 are set aside; petitioner entitled to consequential benefits.

B. Ramdass, S/o. Jagath Ram, Vs The Regional… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.1205 OF 2004

¶3

DATED 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2010

¶4

BETWEEN B.Ramdass … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Rajahmundry Region, East Godavari District. And Others. … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1205 OF 2004

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The petitioner, a Driver in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the APSRTC’), challenges the action of the APSRTC in imposing upon him the punishment of deferment of increments for a period of 18 months with cumulative effect. The said punishment was imposed upon the petitioner by the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, East Godavari Region, East Godavari District, by order dated 05.08.2000. By the said order, the Appellate Authority modified the punishment imposed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ramachandrapuram Depot, East Godavari District, under orders dated 24.08.1999 and 08.09.1999, whereby the petitioner was denied his annual increment for a period of 2½ years with cumulative effect and was also subjected to recovery of a sum of Rs.1,000/- from his monthly salary in 10 equal monthly instalments towards the damage caused to the Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-1603.

¶9

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the service of the APSRTC in the year 1994. While so, the Bus bearing No.AP-10Z1603 driven by him was involved in an accident on 14.12.1997 on the route Draksharamam-Secunderabad. He was issued charge sheet dated 03.12.1998 calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him in this regard. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 15.02.1999, denying the charge. Thereupon, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ramachandrapuram Depot, issued the

¶10

Final Order-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 24.08.1999 ordering that the petitioner’s annual increments should be deferred for a period of 2½ years which would have the effect of postponing his future increments and calling upon him to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.1,000/- should not be recovered from his salary towards the damage caused to the Bus in the accident. Thereafter, the Depot Manager passed the order dated 08.09.1999 directing that the amount of Rs.1,000/- should be recovered from the petitioner’s salary from the month of September, 1999 in 10 equal monthly instalments.

¶11

The petitioner’s appeal against the aforestated orders resulted in the Appellate Authority’s order dated 05.08.2000, whereby the Appellate Authority modified the punishment to the extent of deferring the petitioner’s annual increments for a period of 18 months instead of 2½ years but affirmed that the same would have the effect of permanently postponing future increments. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the direction of the Primary Authority to recover the sum of Rs.1,000/- towards damages. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶12

Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the APSRTC did not choose to hold an enquiry into the matter and solely acting upon the exchange of correspondence between itself and the petitioner, the APSRTC resorted to the imposition of a major punishment, i.e., the withholding of annual increments with cumulative effect. The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in KULWANT SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB^[1] and contended that such a procedure was illegal and unsustainable.

¶13

It is not in dispute that no enquiry preceded the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in KULWANT SINGH GILL, such a procedure is per se illegal when the punishment imposed is a major punishment. I therefore have no hesitation to hold that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by following such an irregular procedure cannot be sustained.

¶14

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned proceedings of the Primary Authority dated 24.08.1999 and 08.09.1999 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 05.08.2000 are set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs.

¶15

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶16

3^RD FEBRUARY, 2010. VGSR

¶17

[1] 1991 Supp.(1) SCC 504

B. Ramdass, S/o. Jagath Ram, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Ramdass, S/o. Jagath Ram, 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.P.Dairy Development Co.op.Federation Ltd., Vs The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

A.P.Dairy Development Co-op.Federation Ltd. Vs The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-

The Depot Manager, Vs B.Nagesh

K.S.K. Rao, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C.

N. Prasad Reddy, S/o. N. Venkata Rami Reddy, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Ch. Ashirwadam S/o Venkaiah Vs The Honble Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour