Telangana High Court
WP/18891/2005 of G.Mallaiah, Vs APSRTC, Musheerabd, Hyderabad, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18891 of 2005 DATED: 26.12.2005 Between: G.Mallaiah. … PETITIONER AND APSRTC and others. … RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in APSRTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, by issuing a
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 18891 of 2005
DATED: 26.12.2005
Between:
G.Mallaiah.
… PETITIONER
AND
APSRTC and others.
… RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
The petitioner is working as a Driver in APSRTC. Disciplinary proceedingswere initiated against him, by issuing a Charge Sheet, dated 09.05.1986. Thepetitioner submitted his explanation on 06.07.1986. On a consideration of thesame, through Office Order, dated 04.05.1987, the Depot Manager, JangaonDepot, 2[nd] respondent herein, imposed the punishment of stoppage of annualincrement for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitionerchallenges the same in this Writ Petition.
On the face of it, the Writ Petition cannot be maintained for more reasons thanone. The petitioner had approached this Court almost two decades after thepunishment was imposed against him. Further, he did not avail the remedy of appeal and review. This Court has taken a consistent view that the impositionof punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, withoutconducting departmental enquiry, can be treated as a major penalty, only fromthe date on which the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in the case ofKULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB. Since the punishment wasimposed against the petitioner earlier thereto, no exception can be taken to theimpugned order.
Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Jsu
---------------
26.12.2005