Mr. Y.Ramesh Babu v. The Govt. of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secreatary

Telangana HC28 Apr 2010WP/9610/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice C.V. Ramulu modified an award of punishment for a Technical Work Inspector alleging bribery, removing the cumulative effect on annual grade increments due to lack of a detailed domestic enquiry while affirming the leave treatment for suspension.

What did the court decide?

Modified punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments to remove cumulative effect; suspension period to be treated as eligible leave.

Mr. Y.Ramesh Babu Vs The Govt. of a.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9610 of 2008

¶3

Dated: 28.04.2010

¶4

Between: Y. Ramesh Babu. .. Petitioner. And The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents.

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

It appears, while the petitioner was working as Technical Work Inspector with the respondent Corporation, on the basis of complaints received against him alleging that he demanded bribe from the beneficiaries of Indiramma Scheme for supplying steel and cement to them, the 3^rd respondent –District Collector/Executive Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Kadapa, suspended the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 09.05.2006, and thereafter the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 24.08.2006. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.08.2006 to the 3^rd respondent, denying the allegations leveled against him, and also submitted another explanation to the 3^rd respondent, as directed by the Deputy Executive Engineer. However, having not satisfied with the said explanations, the 3^rd respondent, by impugned proceedings dated 08.09.2006, imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and ordered to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as leave for which he was eligible.

¶7

While admitting the writ petition on 25.09.2008, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 08.09.2006.

¶8

The counter affidavit filed along with vacate stay petition does

¶9

not indicate that a detailed domestic enquiry as required under law was conducted before issuance of the impugned proceedings. Further, the regulations governing the service conditions of the petitioner do not contemplate imposition of a major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect without conducting a detailed enquiry. Before imposing any major punishment, the management is supposed to conduct a detailed enquiry as per the regulations and pass appropriate orders thereafter. In this case, admittedly, no detailed enquiry as required under law has been conducted while imposing the major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. On this ground alone, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. However, since there is some allegation against the petitioner, instead of remanding the matter for re-consideration, I deem it appropriate to resolve the dispute here itself by modifying the impugned order as under:

¶10

“The punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner-workman is modified to that of the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, and the rest of the order i.e., treating the suspension period of the petitioner as leave for which he was eligible, is not disturbed.”

¶11

With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶12

_____________ C.V.RAMULU,J

¶13

28.04.2010 v v

Mr. Y.Ramesh Babu v. The Govt. of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secreatary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Y.Ramesh Babu v. The Govt. of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secreatary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Anjaneyulu Vs The Chief General Manager

Kukkanna Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Sri U. Subba Rao, Vs The Managing Director

K.Ramaiah Vs A.P.S.R.T.C. Represented by its Managing Director

Mohd. Salauddin Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation/REgistrar of Coop.

Sunkari Pydamma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal