Telangana High Court
WP/39544/2014 of P. Vasudev, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport on 30 December 2014
R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.39544 of 2014 Date: 30-12-2014 Between P.Vasudev … Petitioner and The APSRTC, Rep. by its VC & MD, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State; and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.39544 of
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
Writ Petition No.39544 of 2014
Date: 30-12-2014
Between
P.Vasudev
… Petitioner
and
The APSRTC,Rep. by its VC & MD,Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,Hyderabad, Telangana State;and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAOWrit Petition No.39544 of 2014
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:
Heard Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy,learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation.
2. The petitioner is a driver in the respondents-Corporation. On the ground that he caused an accidenton account of his rash and negligent driving, a charge-memo was issued to him against which, he submitted an explanation denying the charge levelled against him. Thereafter, an order imposing punishment of deferment ofannual increment for a period of two years with cumulativeeffect was imposed against him. Feeling aggrieved, hefiled an appeal and the Appellate Authority rejected theappeal treating it as time barred. Challenging the saidpunishment, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the punishment imposed against thepetitioner is a major punishment, which cannot beimposed without conducting any enquiry and therefore,the punishment is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents-Corporation opposes setting aside thepunishment.
5. Obviously, a major punishment was imposed onthe petitioner without conducting any enquiry, which is notin accordance with law. Therefore, the punishmentimposed by the 3[rd] respondent is modified to that ofstoppage of one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.
6. With the above modification in the punishment,the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
30[th] December, 2014.Ak
___________________
R.KANTHA RAO, J.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
Writ Petition No.39544 of 2014
30[th] December, 2014.(Ak)