Partly allowed

P. Venkateswarlu, v. Apsrtc

Telangana HC18 Nov 2011WP/30559/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partly allowed a writ petition against a departmental order postponing annual increments for one year without conducting a domestic enquiry. The order was violated natural justice. It was modified to stop increment for one year without cumulative effect and denied monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed directing the impugned order to be treated as stoppage of one annual increment for one year without cumulative effect; no monetary benefits granted.

P. Venkateswarlu, Vs Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 30559 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to declare the final order No.02/114(7)/09/ADK, dated 11.01.2010 passed by the 3^rd respondent in deferring the annual increment for a period of one year with effect on the petitioner’s future increments without conducting any departmental enquiry and notice and confirmed by the 2^nd respondent by proceedings dated 15.7.2011, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and to set aside the same with consequential benefits including the restoration of deferred increment and refixation of pay and payment of arrears.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Driver in the respondents-Corporation. On the ground of misappropriation, he was issued with a charge sheet by the 3^rd respondent on 8.10.2009 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.12.2009 denying the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 11.1.2010, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings imposing the punishment of postponement of annual increments which falls next due be deferred for a period of one year with cumulative effect in his future increments. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent herein and the same was rejected by the 2^nd respondent on 21.3.2011. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner preferred a further review before the 2^nd respondent, which was also rejected by proceedings dated 15.7.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶7

impugned proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent is contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the same is passed without conducting proper enquiry and contrary to the regulations. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in KULWANT SINGH GILL Vs. STTE OF PUNJAB^[1] and also judgment dated 29.9.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.24317 of 2010.

¶8

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Order passed by the authority impugned in this Writ Petition is in accordance with law. Admittedly, the petitioner who was appointed in the Respondent–Corporation is a regular driver. He has been issued with a charge sheet dated 8.10.2009 on the allegations that he misbehaved with one Sri P.T.Reddy, Conductor. Denying the said allegations, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.12.2009. Without considering the same, the 3^rd respondent passed final orders dated 11.01.2010 and the same has been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority by their proceedings dated 23.1.2011 and 15.7.2011 respectively.

¶9

Under the impugned Order, the punishment that is imposed is the deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with effect on the petitioner’s future increments. There is no dispute with regard to the punishment imposed by the 3^rd respondent on the petitioner, being a major punishment in which case, the proper enquiry should be conducted in accordance with law. The impugned Order reveals that no proper enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. The apex Court in the judgment reported in Kulwan Singh Gill’s case(1^st cited supra) 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 penalty, it is essential to

¶10

conduct domestic enquiry.

¶11

Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted in the instant case. Further, in the said Writ Petition No. 24317 of 2010, the petitioner therein sought for issue of writ of mandamus to declare therein the final Orders dated 27.1.1996 passed by the 2^nd respondent therein imposing major punishment on the petitioner of annual increments, which shall have the effect of postponing the future increment, without conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and set aside the same further directed the 2^nd respondent to modify the punishment without effecting on future increments with benefits, but without any arrears. This Court having held in ordinary course, the impugned Order is set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, allowed the Writ Petition partly and directed the order dated 27.1.1996 passed by the 2^nd respondent therein shall be treated as stoppage of one annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits that had accrued up to the date of the order.

¶12

Following the judgment of the apex Court as well as this Court in W.P.No. 24317 of 2010 (2^nd cited supra) , I am of the view that in the instant case, the petitioner shall be imposed punishment of deferring annual increment for a period of one year with effect on the petitioner’s future increments. The impugned Order dated 11.1.2010, which was confirmed by the 3^rd respondent dated 15.7.2011, is without conducting any enquiry and there is no dispute with regard to the imposition of punishment on the petitioner is major in which event it is mandatory to conduct enquiry in accordance with law, but the same was not done in the instant case. Therefore, in the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside leaving it open to the respondents to proceed further. In order to avoid delay in the matter, the impugned Order can be treated stoppage of one annual increment

¶13

for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Therefore, the Writ Petition is partly allowed directing the Order dated 11.10.2010 issued by the 3^rd respondent shall be treated as stoppage of one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits that had occurred up to the date of this Order.

¶14

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶16

18^th November, 2011 CHV

¶17

[1] 1991 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 504

P. Venkateswarlu, v. Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Venkateswarlu, v. 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

N.V. Babu, Vs The Apsrtc

N. Bhaskar Rao Vs The a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director

T. Lakshmana Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

T. Murali Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Parasa Chandra Sekhar, Vs Smt. Arundhathi Bhattacharya

R.Kishore Kumar Vs The Project Director