The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by APSRTC officials challenging the imposition of a cumulative stoppage of annual increment on a driver. The court held that since the service regulations were silent on this cumulative punishment, a departmental enquiry was mandatory.
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.
*** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY**
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
+ Writ Appeal No.2628 of 2005
%Date: 23.06.2014
#The Regional Manager and others.
…appellants.
and
$Sri P.P. Reddy. …Respondent
! Counsel for appellants: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao
^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri G.Ravi Mohan
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 1991 (Suppl.1) SCC 504
2. 1994 Lawsuit (SC) 736
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Writ Appeal No.2628 of 2005
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
The sole respondent is the Conductor in the APSRTC, the appellants herein. Alleging certain cash and ticket irregularities, a charge sheet was issued to him on 12.02.1998 and the respondent submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the same, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the 3rd appellant, passed an order, dated 18.05.1998, imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The respondent filed W.P.No.7267 of 2005 challenging the same. A learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing that the deferment of annual increment shall be treated as without cumulative effect. Hence, this writ appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.
In the ordinary parlance, imposition of penalty of deferment of annual increment with cumulative effect is treated as a major penalty. Regulation 12(2) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short ‘the Regulations’) provides for punishment of stoppage of annual increment, but without cumulative effect and no enquiry is needed for it. The uncertainty as to whether the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect can be imposed without conducting departmental enquiry was set at rest in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State
of Pubjab[1] , wherein it was held that any punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect can be imposed,
only after conducting departmental enquiry. Obviously following the same, the learned Single Judge modified the order of punishment.
The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Executive Director, Syndicate Bank v. K.C.Arya[2] . A perusal of the same discloses that, in case the relevant Service Regulations or Rules provide for imposition of major punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, without conducting enquiry, the same cannot be treated as invalid. That, however, is not the case here. The Regulations are silent about the imposition of punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, the judgment in K.C.Arya’s case (2 supra) cannot be treated as precedent to sustain the imposition of punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative without conducting any enquiry. We do not find merits in the writ appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.
____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
Date:23.06.2014
L.R. copy to be marked. GJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a punishment of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect was validly imposed without a departmental enquiry under the applicable regulations.
Whether the Single Judge erred in modifying the punishment by treating the deferment of increment as without cumulative effect.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of PubjabFollowed¶24
1991 (Suppl.1) SCC 504 · Who else cites this
Executive Director, Syndicate Bank v. K.C.AryaDistinguished¶26
1994 Lawsuit (SC) 736
THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS
SRI P.P. REDDY
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
CHALLA KODANDA RAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
