Telangana High Court
WP/27170/2005 of K.S.Siva , Vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC, on 23 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27170 of 2005 Date:23.12.2005 K.S.siva -----------Petitioner A.P.S.R.T.C. and others -------------Respondents ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a conductor in APSRTC. He was issued a Charge Sheet, dated 09.09.1999, alleging certain cash and ticket
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27170 of 2005
Date:23.12.2005
K.S.siva
A.P.S.R.T.C. and others
-----------Petitioner
-------------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:
The petitioner is employed as a conductor in APSRTC. He was issued aCharge Sheet, dated 09.09.1999, alleging certain cash and ticket irregularitiesand that he was required to submit the explanation as to why necessarydisciplinary action shall not be taken against him. It is stated that the petitionersubmitted his explanation to the same. Thereafter, the first respondent passedan order, dated 13.09.2000, imposing the penalty of stoppage of annualincrement for a period of six months and further directed that it shall have thecumulative effect on the future increments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitionerfiled an appeal before the 2[nd] respondent and the same was dismissed. Hence,this Writ Petition.
The only point urged by Sri Y.Venugopal Reddy, the learned counsel for thepetitioner, is that the first respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annualincrement for a period of six months with cumulative effect without conductingdepartmental enquiry. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Courti n KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB and submits thatstoppage of increment is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except byconducting departmental enquiry.
Sri P.Vinayakaswamy, 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 first respondent imposed the penalty ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effecton the allegation that the petitioner committed certain cash and ticketirregularities. Though a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before thepenalty was imposed, no departmental enquiry was conducted. In KULWANTHSINGH GILL’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that stoppage ofincrements with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed,except by conducting departmental enquiry. In view of the same, the impugnedorder cannot be sustained.
In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside,leaving it open to the 1[st] respondent to pass fresh orders. To avoid furtherdelay and complication in the mater, this Court is of the view that the impugnedorder can be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment withoutcumulative effect.
Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the order, dated13.09.2000, shall be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for aperiod of six (6) weeks without cumulative effect and that the petitioner shallnot be entitled for any monetary benefits up to the date of this order. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_________
23.12.2005