This single judge order disposed of a writ petition and miscellaneous petition challenging disciplinary punishment involving withholding of increments. The Court held that as the currency of the punishment had ended, the cause no longer survived for adjudication.
The writ petition is closed; no order as to costs.
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.
M HIGH COURT FOR THE (s pJ"i#ili,3,"#:1,:fsAAr HYD ERABAD
*. offi F F E BRUA RY 3ri""6 J 3i,JS fi?Jtro
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Between:
WRITpETtTtON NO: 26709 OF 2003
P, Snnivas Rao. S/o Sri Venkata Rao. aged about 39 vc nio. c-s5, wnierEl.ii, xo.'tr.,,rgrdem. Khammam oi"tii#ts'occ: Service
AND
...PETITIONER
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing No.CRP/PER/Cl012l \999 dated 1-6-2003 of the respondent No.2 and the proceedings bearing No.CRP/PER/C 101211732 dated 29-92003 of the respondent No.1 confirming the proceedings of the respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the C.D. & A Rules of the respondent Company and issue a consequential order setting aside the same
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2003( WPMP. NO: 33806 OF 2003)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Courtmay be pleased to directthe respondents to considerpetitioners case forpromotion to theposi of Deputy Superintending Engineer(Civil) withoutreferenceto the impugnedproceedings bearing No.CRPi PERlCl}l2lI 999 dated 1-6-2003of the respondentNo 2 and the proceedings bearing No. CRP/PER/C101211732 dated 29-9-2003 ofthe respondent No.1 confirming theproceedings of the respondentNo.2 pending disposal of W P No. 12003.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. J. PRABHAKAR
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. SREENIVASARAO,
SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON,BLESRI JIJSTICE ABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.26709of 2003
ORDER:
When the matter istaken up for hearing, counselfor the petitioner had contendedthat the petitioner was employedwith the respondent Companyand, on certain allegations, the disciplinary authority hadimposed penaityof withholdingof incrementsfor a period of two years withoutcumulativeeffect,vide ordersdated 01.06.2003. Aggrievedby the same,the petitioner preferredappeal, and vide orders dated 29.09.2003, theappellateauthorityhas confirmed the orders of the disciplinary authority.Chaltengingthe same, the present writ petition is filed.
Counsel for the petitioner funher contended that the disciplinary authority has mechanically imposed thepunishment of stoppage of increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect and the appellate authority has mechanically confirmed the same. Counsel further contended that the disciplinary authority as weil as the appellate authority ought to have exonerated the petitioner from the charges leveled against him.
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a minor punishment and after the period of currency of punishment, the petitioner rvould be entitled for withheld increments and. therefore. the cause in the writ petition does not survive
This Court, having considered the n va.l submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that the cuffency of punishment imposed onthe petitionerhas come to an end and the withheld incrementsof the petitionerwould havebeen released to thepetitioner after the period of currencyof punishment and, therefore,the causein the writ petitiondoes not survive for adjudication.
Accordingly,the rvrit petitionis closed' No orderas to costs'
Pending miscellaneouspetitions'if any' shallstand closed'
SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// sECTloNOrrtceR
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310212021
ORDER
W.P.No.26709 of 2003
l*"'
|l L S ?.e
i
oo:e 19 tEB 2021 o7
spn.T
CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
A
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the confirmation of withholding of increments survives after the period of currency of the punishment has ended.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of withheld increments upon conclusion of the punishment period.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Srinivas Rao
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
