Partly allowed

P. Janardhan S/o Late Papaiah v. Apsrtc., rep by Managing Director

Telangana HC22 Feb 2022WA/1011/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals against an order reducing a driver's punishment from removal to salary reduction. The Court allowed the appeal, dismissing cumulative effect rider as redundant, while denying back wages but granting continuity of service.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; cumu; lative effect rider remodved;continuity of service granted; no back wages.

P. Janardhan S/o Late Papaiah Vs Apsrtc… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 427 AND 1 0 1 1 0F 2009

¶6

wA NO 427 0F 2009:

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred by the order dated 03.04.2008 made in W.P.No.7106/2008 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

APSRTC., rep by Managing Director,, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager(HCR), APSRTC, JBS., Secunderabad. 3. The Divisional Manager^(HD) APSRTC.,, C.B.S. Gowliguda,^Hyderabad. 4. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, UOPal, UVO;r;3gNrs/RESpoNDENrs

¶10

AND

¶11

P. Janardhan S/o Late Papaiah, Rlo 3-9-5212, Sharadanagar,^{Ramanathapur,} Hyderabad-1 3

¶12

...RESpoNoENT/pETrroNER

¶13

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI N. PRAVEEN REDDY (sc FoR TSRrC)

¶14

Counsel for Respondent: SRI V. NARASIMHA^GOUD

¶15

WA NO: 1011 OF 2009

¶16

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the^{Letters Patent preferred against the orderdated} 03-04-2008 in WP No. 7106 of 2008 on the^{file of the High Court.}

¶17

Between:

¶18

P. Janardhan S/o Late Papaiah,^{Driver E.} No. 204326, Rlo 3-9-5212, Sharadanagar, Ramanathapur, Hyderabad-1³ ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND APSRTC., rep by lVlanaging Director,, Musheerabad,^Hyderabad. )1 The Reoionai minaqer [ndn), npsnrc, JBS., Secunderabad. J The Diriisional fr4ana"ger'(HD)'APSRTC.,, C.B.S. Gowliguda,^Hyderabad' 4 The Depot lt/anaser, APSRTC.,, Bus^Depot,Urpr', ['JSFSXP&lirs/REspoNDENrs

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI^{V. NARASIMHAGOUD}

¶20

Counsel for Respondents: SRI N.^{PRAVEEN REDDY} (sc FoR TSRTC)

¶21

The Court made the following: COMMON^JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶23

THE HON'I LE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶24

WR :T APPEAL Nos.427 & 1011 of 2OO9

¶25

COMMON JUDGT .ENT: lfer rfre ao i'bl? tle Chief Justtce Satisit Chandra Sl(trne)

¶26

Regard beir g had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were reard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶27

The facts o W.A.No.427 of 2OO9 are reproduced as under: W.A.No.42' of 2009 is arising out of order dated 03.04.2008 passed in W.P.N< .7106 of 2008.

¶28

The facts^, ,f the case reveal that the respondent-workman was appointed as I )river on 10.10.1991. He was regularized on 13.11.1992 and on account of an accident, he was placed under suspension on 22.04.1999 . Finally, after holding a departmental enquiry, he was removed from service on 13.08.1999. An appeal was preferred by hir r and the punishment of removal was converted into reduction of pa' by 2 incremental stages for a period of 2 years from the date of reir statement. He thereafter preferred a review petition and the same ,as dismissed. In those circumstances, he came up , before this Cou^'t.

¶29

¶30

It was arguecl^{before theIearned Single Judgethat the} respondent-writ^{petitioner was not responsiblefor the accident as a} lorry,^{which wascoming from the oppositedirection' hit the bus and it} was the^{lorry driver' who was negligentin the matter' The fact} remains^{that the punishment of rernoval was set aside and the} punishment^{r'vas reduced for a periodof 2 years by 2 incremental} stages^{that too with cumuiative effect' The learned Single Judgehas} arrived^{at a conclusionthat the punishment amountsto double} jeopardy,^{as reduction of two incrementalstages would bring down} the salary^{of the writ petitioner to certain level and the period} mentioned^{is 2 years and therefore'there was no necessity of} mentioning^{the fact that the punishment is with cumulative effect'} We are^{in agreementwith the view taken by the learnedSingle} Judge,^{as the period of reductionof salary by 2 incrementalstages} was^{categorically mentionedin the punishment order as 2 yearsand} therefore,^{there appearsto be no justification in imposing a further} rider^{of cumulativeeffect in the punishmentorder'This Court does} not^{find any reason to interfere with the order passedby the learned} Single^{Judge' It is madeciear that the writ petitioner shall not be} entitled^{for back wages' However'he shall be entitled for continuityof} service^{for ail PurPoses'}

¶31

Resultantiy, W.A.No.427 of 2009 rs drsrnissed and W.A,No.101i

¶32

ol 2O09 is dispose, t of.

¶33

Miscellaneo ls petitions, il' any, shali stand ciosed. There shall

¶34

be no order as to^, osts

¶35

S D/.CH.VEN^KATESWARULU DEPI,.|TY REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To 1 One CC to Sri tP raveen Reddv^{(SC FOR TSRTC)Advocate} IOPUC] 2 One CC to Sri \N arasimha Golrd Advocate TOPUC] a Two CD CoPie ! 4. One Spare^Col Y MBC BS

¶39

HIGH COURT

¶40

DATED: 2210212022

¶41

OMMON JUDGMENT
{
WAN OS$.42 ND 101 1 0F 2009
{}
*
c
r.}i <br>(t:r ua'$

¶42

DISMISSING THE WA NO. 427 OF 2OO9 & DISPOSING OF THE WA NO.1011 OF 2OO9

¶43

WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

f'Ji
t-, l
r ,1

P. Janardhan S/o Late Papaiah v. Apsrtc., rep by Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Janardhan S/o Late Papaiah v. Apsrtc., rep by 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

D. Ashok Kumar Vs The New And Renewable Energy Development Corporation Limited

The Ap STate Housing Corporation Limited, rep.by its Vs Y.Dayanand

M.Vijaya Kumar Vs Gundlapally Sreenu

P. Raja Vikram Reddy , P.R. Vikram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ahmed Moinuddin Jaffer, And 3 Others Vs The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, And Another

The Apsrtc, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Vs The Presiding Officer