Partly allowed

K.S.Rao v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Adilabad

Telangana HC10 Aug 2011WP/1462/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court found that withholding increment without a domestic enquiry was a major penalty. Instead of quashing, the petitioner's penalty was reduced to stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, denying monetary benefits accrued.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25.02.1999 treated as stoppage of annual increment for one year without cumulative effect; no monetary benefits accrued.

K.S.Rao Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1462 of 2010 ORDER:

¶2

The petitioner is working as Conductor in Mancherial Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. A charge sheet was issued on 14.10.1998 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.10.1998. Taking the same into account, the 2^nd respondent passed an order, dated 25.02.1999, imposing the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of two years 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.

¶3

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

¶4

In KULWANT SINGH GILL v. 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.

¶5

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 one year without cumulative effect.

¶6

Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the order, dated 25.02.1999, passed by the 2^nd respondent shall be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year 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.

¶7

___________ 10.08.2011

¶8

JSU

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.1462 of 2011

¶11

Date: 10.08.2011

¶12

JSU

¶13

[1] 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504

K.S.Rao v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Adilabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Rao v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Adilabad

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

Kondamudi Rani Vs The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company

Md. Rahamathulla Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M.Rajamani Vs Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions

J.Venkat Reddy, Vs The Regional manager

Dr.I.Balaram Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Boddepalli Ramarao, Vs Kotabommali Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society