Partly allowed

B.R. Kumar v. The Apsrtc.

Telangana HC29 Sept 2010WP/24317/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a penalty order imposing a six-month stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. The court held this constitutes a major penalty requiring a domestic enquiry which was absent. The petition was partly allowed, treating the order as one for stoppage without cumulative effect, denying past monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.01.1996 treated as stoppage of annual increment for six months without cumulative effect; no past monetary benefits allowed; no order as to costs.

B.R. Kumar Vs The Apsrtc. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24317 OF 2010.

¶2

DATED 29^TH SEPTEMBER, 2010.

BETWEEN

B.R.Kumar

and

APSRTC, rep. By its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad and ors

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24317 OF 2010

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

The petitioner is working as Conductor in Godavarikhani Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. A charge sheet was issued on 16.01.1996 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.01.1996. Taking the same into account, respondent No.2 passed an order, dated 27.01.1996, imposing the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that the respondents imposed major penalty against the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed therefor.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶11

In Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab^[1] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is classified as a major penalty under the relevant Service Regulations. For imposition of such a penalty, it is essential to conduct domestic enquiry. Admittedly, no such enquiry was conducted in this case.

¶12

In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to pass fresh orders. To avoid further delay and complication in the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order can be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect.

¶13

Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the order, dated 27.01.1996, passed by respondent No.2 shall be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit that had accrued up to the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

29^{T H} SEPTEMBER, 2010. Msnr

¶16

[1] 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504

B.R. Kumar v. The Apsrtc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.R. Kumar v. The 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

M. Obulamma Vs The district Collector/District Project Co-coordinator

B. Rajeshwar RAo Vs the Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Ch. Venkat Reddy Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

K.krishna Vs The Managing Director-cum-Vice Chairman

Sk. Chand Basha Vs Regional Manager

A. lakshminarayana Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc