WP/26724/2006 of A.J.Jermiah, Vs The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., on 26 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in passing the impugned order dated15.12.1994 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment fora period of one year with cumulative effect.

The case of the petitioner is that he is employed as Conductor inthe respondent corporation. While so, a charge sheet dated 28.9.1994was issued to the petitioner alleging that he has not followed the rule“issue and start” and failed to collect ticket from a passenger.

The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges leveledagainst him. However, without considering the same, and withoutconducting any enquiry, the impugned final orders were passedimposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period ofone year with cumulative effect. Hence, the present writ petitionquestioning the action of the respondents in imposing the majorpunishment without conducting a departmental enquiry.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that punishment ofdeferment of increments for a period of one year with cumulative effectis a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed withoutconducting regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under theAPSRTC Employees’ (CC & A) Regulations. In support of hiscontention, he placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[[1]]. Learnedcounsel for petitioner also relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 20609 of 1999 dated 7.12.2005 which is in a similar backgroundof facts and circumstances.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondents-corporation vehemently opposed the saidcontention and submitted that respondent No.1 after carefulconsideration of the entire evidence available on record together withthe explanation submitted by the petitioner, has passed the impugnedorder, hence, no reasons to interfere with the same.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned StandingCounsel for respondent Corporation.

It is an admitted fact that the respondent imposed punishment ofdeferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulativeeffect, which is a major punishment. Admittedly, no regulardepartmental enquiry was conducted though the charge sheet wasissued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. The Apex Courtin KULWANTH SINGH GILL’S CASE (cited supra) held that stoppageof increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot beimposed without conducting the departmental enquiry. Since thepunishment of stoppage of annual increment was imposed withoutconducting regular departmental enquiry violating the judgment ofApex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to beset aside leaving it open to respondent to pass fresh orders. But toavoid further litigation in the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose ofthe writ petition with the following direction.

The impugned order dated 15.12.1994 passed by therespondent imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual incrementwith cumulative effect, is modified to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner shall not be entitled to anymonetary benefits arising out of this order, but shall be entitled tofixation of pay only.

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

_____________

N.V.RAMANA,JDATE: 26.12.2006tvk

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NO :26724of2006

DATED: 26.12.2006

[1]1990 (1) LLJ 635