Partly allowed

T. Ashok Reddy, v. a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director

Telangana HC4 Dec 2014WA/1044/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against an order postponing regularisation by two years due to misconduct. Court held postponement of regularisation is not a recognised punishment under Regulations. Appeal partly allowed; appellant to be regularised with corrected seniority but no back wages.

What did the court decide?

Appellant to be regularised into service on par with similarly situated persons with fixed seniority; no entitlement to arrears.

T. Ashok Reddy, Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶4

Writ Appeal Nos.880, 922 & 1044 of 2006

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

These three writ appeals are filed by the same appellant and against the same respondents and they arise out of a common order, dated 13.04.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.21537, 22775 and 22778 of 2005.

¶7

The appellant was selected and was appointed as Conductor in the year 1997, but was put on daily wages. Inspections were conducted on 01.12.1997, 04.10.1998 and 07.01.1999, when he was on duty. On one occasion, he was found that he did not issue ticket to a CRPF Constable; on the second occasion, it was found that he held cash of Rs.180/-, in excess and on the third occasion, he was found to have not issued tickets to seven passengers.

¶8

The case of the appellant was that the CRPF Constable did not pay the fare, in spite repeated demands, stating that he is a Constable on duty; the excess amount was due to the fact that his relation gave that amount for purchase of medicines covered by prescription and on the third occasion, there were as many as 116 passengers, in and above the bus, and the check has taken place when the issuance of tickets was in progress, particularly on the top of the bus. The Depot Manager passed separate and individual orders, dated 28.01.1998, 02.02.1999 and 26.02.1999, imposing the punishment of postponement of regularisation by one year, six

¶9

months and six months, aggregating to two years. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the appellant filed the three writ petitions, referred to above. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, taking the view that the punishment does not warrant interference. Hence, these three writ appeals.

¶10

Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶11

The cumulative effect of the punishments imposed on three occasions was that the regularisation of the appellant into service was postponed by two years. Assuming that the charges were proved, the respondents could have imposed the punishment, which is provided for under the Regulations. The postponement of regularisation is not at all recognised as a punishment. Howsoever innocuous it may appear to be, it would have its own impact, particularly in the context of promotions in the service. When the service conditions are governed by the Regulations, the respondents could not have imposed the punishment other than the one provided for under the Regulations. At the same time, the appellant cannot be extended the benefit of back wages.

¶12

Therefore, we partly allow the writ appeals and modify the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as those challenged in the writ petitions to the effect that the appellant shall be entitled to be regularised into service on par with other similarly situated persons and his seniority shall be fixed accordingly. However, he shall not be entitled to any arrears, on account of the relief granted hereunder. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of.

¶14

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶15

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

¶16

Date:04.12.2014

¶17

T. Ashok Reddy, v. a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ashok Reddy, v. a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director

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

The Commissioner , Customs and Central Excise, Vs M/s. Sifco Metal Industries

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s..Sri Satyaprakash Agarwal

Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Vs M/s Utkal Manufacturing and Service Ltd.

the Apsrtc, rep by Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Vs B. Nagendra Kumar S/o Late B. Kutumba Rao

D. Lakshmipathy Vs The Presiding Officer

The Praga Tools Limited, rep. by its General Manager, Vs Kaza Mounuddin