This single-judge writ petition challenged a disciplinary penalty of withholding an annual increment with cumulative effect as arbitrary and violative of natural justice. The court held this is a major penalty requiring a domestic enquiry and quashed the punishment.
The penalty imposed is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.13759 of 2004
Date: 18.12.2013
Between: G. Sammaiah, s/o. Venkataiah, Retd. Jr. Accounts Officer, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Warangal. … Petitioner
AND The Chief General Manager (HRD), Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Warangal, and another.
… Respondents
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Writ Petition No.13759 of 2004
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in imposing penalty of postponement of one annual increment with cumulative effect, through orders dated 04.01.2003, which was confirmed by the second respondent, through proceedings dated 07.03.2003, as arbitrary and as violative of principles of natural justice.
2. The petitioner is a Retired Junior Accounts Officer of Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra
Pradesh Limited. He joined as a Clerk on 05.02.1971. He retired as Junior Accounts Officer on 08.07.2002. On 29.08.2002 the office of the petitioner was inspected by the first respondent. Considering that the petitioner committed misconduct, nine charges were levelled against the petitioner; a show cause notice was issued on 17.10.2002. The petitioner offered his explanation on 23.11.2002. Not satisfied with the explanation, punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect was awarded. The petitioner filed an administrative appeal questioning the punishment before the second respondent. Through orders dated 07.03.2003, the second respondent dismissed the appeal.
3. The only question is whether the imposition of penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect can be awarded without any domestic enquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty and that domestic enquiry is not necessary for imposition of such a penalty. He contended that the issuance of charge sheet and answer to the show cause notice by the petitioner are sufficient for the imposition of the penalty.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon G. Gangaram v. A.P.S.E.B.[1] . A learned single Judge of this Court held in that case that with reference to A.P.S.E.B. (Revised) Conduct Regulations and Discipline and Appeal Regulations, imposition of penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and that such a penalty cannot be imposed without preceded by a domestic enquiry. Where the penalty imposed against the petitioner herein is thus treated as a major penalty,
I respectfully agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge in G. Gangaram. Consequently, the penalty recorded by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner viz., imposition of penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty, which could not be imposed without preceded by a domestic enquiry.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The penalty imposed is found to be bad and is accordingly set aside. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________ Dr. K.G. Shankar, J
Date: 18.12.2013 Isn
[1] 2005 (5) ALT 524
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect requires a domestic enquiry.
Whether such a penalty is a major penalty that cannot be imposed without a domestic enquiry.
Whether the imposition of the penalty was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G. Gangaram v. A.P.S.E.B.Relied on¶15
2005 (5) ALT 524
G. Sammaiah
The Chief General Manager (HRD), Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Warangal
another
K.G. Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
