Telangana High Court
WP/24200/2004 of Heeroji Vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC., on 27 December 2004
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 K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24200 of 2004 Between: Heeroji, Conductor, C/o Balaram, Ramnagar, Mahaboobnagar District
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 K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24200 of 2004
Between:
Heeroji, Conductor, C/o Balaram, Ramnagar, Mahaboobnagar District
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Mahaboobnagar District
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue a Writ, order or directions, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus,declaring the office order No.: 2/95(23)/95-MBNR dt 26-5-1995 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same with all consequentialbenefits including arrears.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondent: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY (S.C. FORAPSRTC)
The Court at the admission stage, made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24200 of 2004
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 the respondent-Corporation.He was issued a charge memo on 01-5-1995 and after receiving theexplanation of the petitioner, the final orders were passed on 26-05-1995imposing the penalty of withholding of one incremental stage for a period of oneyears with cumulative effect. The petitioner questioned the order on the groundthat though there is reduction of annual increment with cumulative effect is amajor penalty, the respondent passed the impugned order without conductingany enquiry as required under the rules. Therefore, the order is illegal and it isliable to be set aside.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the SupremeCourt in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1] wherein the Supreme Courtheld that since the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a majorpunishment, the order cannot be sustained without an enquiry. The petitionertherefore seeks to declare that the order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside.
3. The petitioner after receiving the adverse orders slept over the matterfor a period of 9 years. There are latches on his part in asserting his rightregarding this issue. Though the impugned order is liable to be set aside onaccount of long lapse of time, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court inKulwant Singh Gill (1 supra), I am of the view that it would be appropriate ifthe punishment imposed on the petitioner is treated as reduction of one annualincrement without cumulative effect. The petitioner is not entitled for thedifference of the amount, if any, by virtue of this order for the period from thedate of the impugned order till the date of this order. But, he is entitled to get increments on notional calculation from the date of this order to which he isentitled, as he had not been imposed penalty of reduction of one annualincrement without cumulative effect.
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations.
__________________
December 27, 2004
Kvr
To
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Mahaboobnagar District.
2. 2 C.D copies.