WP/25457/2006 of P. Naga Raju S/o L.R. Raju Vs The APSRTC repby 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 16.04.1998,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 Driver in APSRTC. He wasissued a charge sheet, dated 20.03.1998, alleging that heunauthorisedly absent from duties on 17.03.1998 and 18.03.1998, andthat he was required to submit the explanation, as to why necessarydisciplinary action shall not be taken against him, for which he submittedexplanation denying the charges framed against him. Respondent No.2,without conducting any regular departmental enquiry and withoutaffording any opportunity, passed the impugned order imposingpunishment of withholding the annual increment for a period of one yearwith cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed thepresent 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 16.04.1998, 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