WP/26682/2006 of R.Laxmaiah, Vs The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nagar Kurnool, on 22 December 2006

Order:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondent in issuing theproceedings NO.01/2(8)/95-NGKL, dated 26-3-1996, imposingpunishment of deferment of two annual increment of the petitionerfor a period of two years with cumulative effect, as illegal andarbitrary and to pass such other suitable orders.

The petitioner is employed as a Driver in APSRTC. He wasissued a charge sheet, dated 28-7-1995, alleging that he hascommitted accident while performing his duties on 16-7-1995 on route Yedula-Wanaparthy and that he was required tosubmit the explanation, as to why necessary disciplinary actionshall not be taken against him, for which he did not submit theexplanation. Respondent authorities without conducting anyregular departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunitypassed the impugned order imposing punishment of withholding theannual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that stoppage ofincrement of an employee with cumulative effect is a major penalty,and the same cannot be imposed without conducting regularDepartmental Enquiry as contemplated under the APSRTCEmployees’ (CC&A) Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). Insupport of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of”the Supreme Court in “Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1].

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondents-Corporation vehemently opposed the saidcontention and submitted that the respondent, after careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record has passedthe impugned order, hence, no reasons to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused thematerial available on record.

It is an admitted fact that the respondent imposed punishmentof deferment of annual increment for a period of two years withcumulative effect, which is a major punishment. Admittedly, noregular departmental enquiry was conducted though the chargesheet was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. TheApex Court in “Kulwanth Singh Gill’s Case (1 supra) held thatstoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penaltyand it cannot be imposed without conducting the departmentalenquiry. Since the punishment of stoppage of annual increment fora period of one year was imposed without conducting regulardepartmental enquiry violating the judgment of the Apex Court, theimpugned order cannot be sustained.

In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs tobe set aside leaving it open to the respondent to pass fresh orders,but to avoid further litigation in the matter, I deem it appropriate todispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

“ the impugned order dated 26-3-1996, passedby respondent-authorities imposing punishment ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of oneyear with cumulative effect, is modified to that ofstoppage of annual increment without cumulativeeffect. The petitioner shall not be entitled to anymonetary benefits arising out of this order, butshall be entitled to fixation of pay only ”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admissionstage. No costs.

Date:22-12-2006.NSR/ISL

1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504

___________________

N.V. RAMANA,

J