Disposed

V.C.Mohan, E-212219, Conductor, v. The Tsrtc rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC7 Oct 2015WP/32543/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged deferment of annual increment without prior enquiry. Court declined merits due to pending appeal before the 2nd respondent. Ordered the appeal be disposed within eight weeks, in light of a prior precedent.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the pending appeal within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

V.C.Mohan, E-212219, Conductor, Vs The Tsrtc rep by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.32543 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment of the petitioner for a period of one year with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 21.12.2012, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in 2005 and his services were regularized in 2010. While working in the 3^rd respondent-Depot, charge sheet was issued to him on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities, for which, he submitted his explanation. According to the petitioner, without conducting any departmental enquiry, major punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect was imposed on him. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been preferred.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in similar set of circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22658 of 2005, dated 20.10.2005, modified the punishment to that of stoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect.

¶8

On the other learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation contends that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent and the same is pending.

¶9

In view of the pendency of the appeal, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case.

¶10

However, as the appeal has been pending for long time before the 2^nd respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22658 of 2005, dated 20.10.2005. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶13

7^th October, 2015 rkk

V.C.Mohan, E-212219, Conductor, v. The Tsrtc rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.C.Mohan, E-212219, Conductor, v. The Tsrtc rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director

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

Geesala Nagamani, Vs Deyyala Srinivasu

Vemuganti Rama Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

A.Seenaiah Vs The a.P.State Road Transport Corporation rep by its

P.Narasimha Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Sudarshan, Vs T.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Executive Director

Kota Jagadeeswara Rao, S/o. Kota Appa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh