Telangana High Court
WP/24417/2004 of B. Venkatesham, Vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24417 of 2004 Between: B. Venkatesham, S/o. narsimha, Hindu, Conductor, E.No.255102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24417 of 2004
Between:
B. Venkatesham, S/o. narsimha, Hindu, Conductor, E.No.255102 APSRTC, Narkatpally Bus Depot, Nalgonda District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narkatpally Bus Depot, Nalgonda District.
2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Nalgonda.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toIssue a writ or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the at the action of the respondents in imposing thepunishment of deferment of annual increment when next falls for a period of Twoyears with cumulative effect on future increments as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust andunreasonable and violative of principles of natural jutice and contrary to thejudgments of this Hon'ble Court and also the apex court by setting aside the finalorder No.02/62(85)/93-NKP dt. 1.10.1993 of the R1 herein and consequently directthe respondents to add the deferred increments and pay arrears.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY, STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR APSRTC
The Court at the stage of admission, made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is working as a conductor in APSRTC. He was issueda charge memo dated 12.08.1993 for having failed to observe therule ‘Issue and Start’ and for having failed to collect the fare issueticket to a batch of two passengers who boarded the bus. Thepetitioner had submitted his explanation. The same was taken intoaccount and the 1[st] respondent has passed orders dated 1.10.1993imposing stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for aperiod of two years. The petitioner challenges the same in this writpetition on the ground that though, what was imposed is a majorpenalty, the respondents did not hold domestic enquiry.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standingcounsel for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon ajudgment of Supreme Court in KULVANT SINGH GILL V.STATE OF
PUNJAB as well as a decision of this court in S.K.MASTHANv.MANAGING DIRECTOR.
The learned standing counsel Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy on the otherhand submits that the writ petition cannot be maintained since it isfiled 11 years after the impugned order and the same deserves to bedismissed on the ground of latches.
It is true that the writ petition is filed 11 years after the 1[st] respondenthas passed orders imposing penalty. In the normal course of things,the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches.However, in the matter of rights of employees, the Supreme Court inGURUMAL SING v.PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OFEDUCATION has held that the belated challenge of the ordersdetrimental to the interests of the employees should not result in totaldenial of relief, and at the most they can be denied back wages.Therefore, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground oflatches alone.
Through the impugned order the respondents have imposed thepenalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect.No departmental enquiry was conducted. From a perusal of theClassiffication Control & Appeal Regulations, it is evident that thepenalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect can betreated as a minor penalty. Therefore, the same could have beenimposed only after conducting enquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Kulvant Singh Gill’s case (1 supra) held that major penalty cannotbe imposed without conducting the departmental enquiry. In that viewof the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained.
As a result of setting aside of the impugned order the matter has tobe remitted back to the 2[nd] respondent for fresh consideration.However, having regard to the fact that the order was passed morethan a decade ago, this Court feels it just and proper to treat thepunishment against the petitioner, as the one for stoppage of twoincrements without cumulative effect. Since, the petitioner haschallenged the impugned order after 11 years, it is held that he shall not be entitled for any back wages or arrears of pay, as aconsequence of the modification of the punishment. The petitionershall however be entitled for refixation of pay with prospective effect.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction.No costs.
____________
28.12.2004
bsv
To
1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narkatpally Bus Depot, Nalgonda District.
2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nalgonda.
3 2 CD copies