Telangana High Court
WP/24298/2004 of M.S Ali, 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 : 24298 of 2004 Between: M.S Ali, S/o.Late Sahid Ali, R/o.5-8-82, Ansar Colony,
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 : 24298 of 2004
Between:
M.S Ali, S/o.Late Sahid Ali,
R/o.5-8-82, Ansar Colony, Barkathpura, Nalgonda.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Nalgonda.
2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.
.....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 an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ ofCertiorari, quash the impugned Proc.No.P1/1(43)/90-NLG Dt.25.3.1991 in deferringincrement for a period of one year with cumulative effect with holding an enquiry asband in law, in violation of Art.14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and in violationof Reg.12 (2) of the C.C.&A Reg.of APSRTC, 1963 and consequently direct the 2ndrespondent to restore the said deferred increments along with all consequentialbenefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD, 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 20.12.1990 for having remained absent forduty from 21.4.1990 to 23.4.1990 without any intimation or priorsanction of leave; for having failed to submit the authorized medicalcertificate and for having habituated to absent duties without anyintimation. The petitioner had submitted his explanation. The samewas taken into account and the 1[st] respondent has passed ordersdated 25.3.1991 imposing stoppage of one increment withcumulative effect for a period of one year. The petitioner challengesthe same in this writ petition on the ground that though, what wasimposed is a major penalty, the respondents did not hold domesticenquiry.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon ajudgment of Supreme Court in KULVANT SINGH GILL V.STATE OFPUNJAB as well as a decision of this court in S.K.MASTHANv.MANAGING DIRECTOR.
The learned standing counsel Sri V.T.M.Prasad on the other handsubmits that the writ petition cannot be maintained since it is filed 13years after the impugned order and the same deserves to bedismissed on the ground of latches.
It is true that the writ petition is filed 13 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 one annual increment with cumulative effect.No departmental enquiry was conducted. From a perusal of theClassiffication Control & Appeal Regulations, it is evident that thepenalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect cannotbe treated 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 more than a decade ago, this Court feels it just and proper to treat thepunishment against the petitioner, as the one for stoppage of oneincrement without cumulative effect. Since, the petitioner haschallenged the impugned order after 13 years, it is held that he shallnot 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, Bus Depot, Nalgonda.
2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.
3 2 CD copies