WP/26917/2006 of V.N. Rao S/o Kanakaiah Vs The APSRTC., rep by Regional manager, on 27 December 2006

Order:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings dated 18.01.1993,withholding the annual increment of the petitioner for a period of oneyear with cumulative effect, as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in APSRTC. He wasissued a charge sheet, dated 06.01.1993, alleging that while conductingthe bus, he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities on26.12.1992, and that he was required to submit the explanation, as towhy necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, forwhich he submitted explanation denying the charges framed againsthim. Respondent No.2, without conducting any regular departmentalenquiry and without affording any opportunity, passed the impugnedorder imposing punishment of withholding the annual increment for aperiod of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, thepetitioner filed the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that stoppage ofincrements of an employee with cumulative effect is a major penalty, andthe same cannot be imposed without conducting regular departmentalenquiry as contemplated under the APSRTC Employees’ (CC&A)Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). In support 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 respondent No.2, after careful consideration 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 both the parties and perused thematerial available on record.

It is an admitted fact that respondent No.2 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 Court in “Kulwanth Singh Gill’s Case (1 supra) held that stoppage of incrementswith cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposedwithout conducting the departmental enquiry. Since the punishment ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of one year was imposedwithout conducting regular departmental enquiry violating the judgmentof the apex 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 No.2 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 18.01.1993, passed by respondentNo.2, imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a periodof one year with cumulative effect, is modified to that of stoppage ofannual increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner shall not beentitled to any monetary benefits arising out of this order, but shall beentitled to fixation of pay only.

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

___________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504