WP/27990/2005 of N.Sathyam, Vs The Regional Manager, APSRTC, on 30 December 2005

O R D E R:

The petitioner is employed as a Driver in APSRTC. He was issued acharge sheet, dated 27-01-1993, alleging that he caused damage to the tyres,while conducting the bus on 06-03-1992 and that he was directed to explain asto why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for thelapse on his part. He submitted his explanation to the same. Withoutconsidering the said explanation, the 3[rd] respondent passed an order, dated 22-02-1995, imposing penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of oneyear with cumulative effect. He challenges the same.

The only point urged by Sri Y.Subba Rao, the learned counsel for thepetitioner, is that the 3[rd] respondent imposed a penalty of stoppage of annualincrement for a period of one year with cumulative effect, without conductingdepartmental enquiry. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Courtin KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB and submits that stoppageof increment is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conductingdepartmental enquiry.

Smt P.Rajani Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents, on the other hand, submits that the penalty imposed against thepetitioner itself is minimal, if the lapse on his part is taken into account.

It is a matter of record that the 3[rd] respondent imposed the penalty ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect onthe allegation that the petitioner was negligent in performing his duties. Thougha charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed, nodepartmental enquiry was conducted. I n KULWANTH SINGH GILL’s case(supra), the Supreme Court held that stoppage of increments with cumulativeeffect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conducting departmental enquiry. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot besustained.

In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside,leaving it open to the respondents to pass fresh orders. To avoid further delayand complication in the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned ordercan be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for a period of oneyear without cumulative effect.

Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the order, dated 22-02-1995, passed by the 3[rd] respondent shall be treated as the one for stoppage ofannual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. However,the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit that had accrued upto the date of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

30[th] DECEMBER, 2005.

_________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

kvni