Telangana High Court
WP/40839/2014 of G. Thirumalaiah Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 31 December 2014
R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40839 of 2014 Date: 31-12-2014 Between G.Thirumalaiah … Petitioner and APSRTC, Rep. by its MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad; and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40839 of 2014 Order: Heard Sri P.Govinda
Date: 31-12-2014
Between
G.Thirumalaiah
… Petitioner
and
APSRTC,Rep. by its MD,Musheerabad, Hyderabad;and 2 others … Respondents
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:
Heard Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Sri A.Rama Rao, learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare thefinal order dated 01-4-2002 passed by the 3[rd] respondentin imposing major punishment of deferment of annualincrement for a period of two years with effect on petitioner’s future increments without conducting a departmental enquiry and following APSRTC CircularNo.1/1999, dated 19-02-1999, as illegal and arbitrary, andset aside the same with all consequential benefitsincluding restoration of deferred increments with allattendant benefits and arrears.
3. The petitioner was a conductor in therespondents-Corporation. On the ground that hecommitted cash and ticket irregularities while conductingservice on 15-02-2001 on route Puttur to Nagari, a charge-memo was issued to him against which, he submitted an explanation denying the charge levelledagainst him. Thereafter, an order imposing punishment ofdeferment of annual increment for a period of two yearswith cumulative effect was imposed against him. Challenging the said punishment, the petitioner filed thepresent writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the punishment imposed against thepetitioner is a major punishment, which cannot beimposed without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, thepunishment is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placedreliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[[1]], wherein it was held that punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulativeeffect is classified as a major penalty under the relevantservice regulations. For imposition of such a penalty, it is essential to conduct domestic enquiry. The learnedcounsel also placed reliance on an unreported judgmentof a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.276 of 2006,dated 06-11-2014, wherein it was held that though therewas delay in filing the writ petition, imposition of majorpunishment of stoppage of increment with cumulativeeffect without conducting departmental enquiry was illegaland modified the same by treating the punishment to beas the one without cumulative effect.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents-Corporation opposes for setting aside thepunishment.
7. Obviously, a major punishment was imposed onthe petitioner without conducting any enquiry, which is notin accordance with law. Therefore, the punishmentimposed by the 3[rd] respondent is modified to that ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. However, thepetitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits.
8. With the above modification in the punishment,the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
31[st] December, 2014.Ak
___________________
R.KANTHA RAO, J.
31[st] December, 2014.(Ak)
[1]1991 Supp.(1) SCC 504