Telangana High Court
WP/12595/1997 of G.Vankateshwarlu Vs The Depot Manager on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 12595 of 1997 Between: G.Vankateshwarlu S/o.Sri Venkatadri R/o.Beside Shivalayam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 12595 of 1997
Between:
G.Vankateshwarlu S/o.Sri Venkatadri R/o.Beside Shivalayam Cheruvu Katta, Narasaraopet Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Depot Manager APSRTC
Narasaraopet Guntur District.
2 The Labour Court
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari setting aside the award ofthe Labour Court, Guntur, passed in I.D.No.285/1993 on 28-8-1996 to the extent ofnot giving the back wages and deferment of Annual Increments with cumulativeeffect after calling for the records and to pass such other orders that this Hon'bleCourt may deem just to pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri R.M. Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. for Labour.
The Court 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.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard both sides.
The petitioner, who was initially appointed as driver, andsubsequently having regard to his defective vision, reverted ascleaner, filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking to assail the award inI.D.No.285 of 1993 dated 28.8.1996 on the file of the 2[nd] respondentherein, whereunder the petitioner was reinstated with continuity ofservice but without back wages and further imposing the punishmentof deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
The facts in brief are that during the course of his service, hewas found to be absent unauthorisedly from 7.1.1989 to 25.1.1989.On issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner had givenexplanation to the effect that when he returned from Shabarimalai, hefell sick and in spite of the telegram being sent for extension of leave,the same was not acceded to and the sickness turned out to beTyphoid fever and, therefore, his absence is purely accidental andunintentional. The same was not accepted and ultimately thepetitioner was removed from service, whereupon he raised thedispute which is taken up by 2[nd] respondent as I.D.No.285 of 1993.
After contest, the 2[nd] respondent passed the impugned awardreinstating the petitioner into service with continuity of service, butwithout back wages. That apart, a further punishment of deferment oftwo annual increments with cumulative effect was also imposed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having alreadygiven punishment of withholding back wages, the second aspect ofdeferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect amountsto double punishment and further such deferment is a majorpunishment, which could not have been awarded.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentscontested the petitioner’s claim and submitted that on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the punishment imposed is perfectlyjustified and does not call for any interference.
Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perusingthe order impugned, the only question that calls for consideration iswhether the deferment of two annual increments with cumulativeeffect, as awarded by the 2[nd] respondent under the facts andcircumstances of the case, would be arbitrary and also amounts todouble punishment.
There is no dispute that since the petitioner, who was anemployee of the Corporation, continued to be absent unauthorisedly,proceedings were initiated against him and ultimately he wasremoved from service, rejecting his explanation. It is the case of thepetitioner that he went to Shabarimalai and while returning he fell sickand when he applied for extension of his leave on medical grounds,the same was not acceded. Therefore, his absence is purely accidental and unintentional and further the period of absence wasalso not longer one.
The 2[nd] respondent, after upholding that the petitioner isentitled for reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages, had, however, ordered the aforesaid further punishment ofdeferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Therecannot be any dispute regarding the fact that deferment of anyincrements is a substantial major punishment, which could not havebeen taken recourse to. In the absence of any warrantingcircumstances, except the fact that the petitioner was found absentunauthorisedly for few days, there is no other serious allegationagainst him. In view of the same, basically the question of imposingsuch punishment, more so, when the petitioner was reinstated withcontinuity of service, could not have been ordered. Further, havingwithheld back wages as a suitable punishment for such unauthorizedabsence, any further punishment of deferment of two annualincrements with cumulative effect would certainly amount to a doublepunishment. In the circumstances, it is to be held that the 2[nd]respondent was not right in awarding such punishment.
The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned award to theextent of imposing punishment of deferment of two annualincrements with cumulative effect is set aside. No order as to costs.
27.12.2004
To,
1 The Depot Manager APSRTC
Narasaraopet Guntur District.
2 The Labour Court
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. 2 CCs to G.P. for Labour, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
4. 2 CD copies.