Telangana High Court
WP/33232/1997 of Abdul Hamee, Vs The Regional Manager, on 26 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 33232 of 1997 DATED: 26.12.2005 Between: Abdul Hameed petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC Nalgonda, Nalgonda district Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 33232 of 1997
DATED: 26.12.2005
Between:
Abdul Hameed petitioner
And
The Regional Manager, APSRTC
Nalgonda, Nalgonda district Respondent
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO. 33232 OF 1997
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.
ORAL ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the RegionalManager dated 14.5.1995.
The admitted facts are that the petitioner, a driver working with the respondentcorporation met with an accident while operating Bus bearing No. AP9Z 5351resulting in two casualties and causing injuries to others. Hence, he was issued witha charge sheet and suspended vide proceedings dated 22.7.1993. Having notsatisfied with the explanation, the Depot Manager passed removal order dated13.3.1994. The appeal filed against the removal order was rejected videproceedings dated 21.6.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review and thereview authority vide impugned proceedings dated 14.5.1995 by taking a lenientview, modified the punishment of removal and imposed the punishment ofpostponement of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulativeeffect and the period from the date of removal to the date of reporting duty be treatedas “Not on duty”. Questioning the same, the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a clean record ofservice, except for the subject accident and the respondent authorities have notconsidered the same and imposition of punishment of postponement of incrementsfor two years by the review authority is harsh and unjustified.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-corporation submitted that thecharge against the petitioner is grave in nature of rash and negligent drivingresulting in two casualties and injuries to others. The review authority, having regardto the clean past service of the petitioner has taken a lenient view and modified theorder of removal and imposed a minor punishment of postponement of incrementsfor two years and the same cannot be said to be unjust.
The charge against the petitioner relates to rash and negligent driving of the busresulting in two casualties and grave injuries to others. The Review authority, bytaking into consideration the past service of petitioner and by taking a lenient view,has modified the order of removal and imposed the minor punishment ofpostponement of increments for a period of two years and the same cannot be saidto be disproportionate. No exception can be taken thereto by this Court, more sohaving regard to the judgment of the apex Court in Regional Manager, RajasthanSRTC v. Sohan Lal, wherein it was held that it is not within the normal jurisdiction ofthe superior courts to interfere with the quantum of sentence imposed by thedisciplinary authority, unless it is shown that the sentence imposed is whollydisproportionate to the misconduct proved. The petitioner has not made out any ground to show that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority isdisproportionate to the proved misconduct.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was alreadyretired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and due to pendency ofthe present writ petition the increments to which the petitioner is entitled in terms ofthe impugned proceedings dated 14.5.1995 were not granted and prayed thatrespondents may be directed to settle the same. Hence, the respondents aredirected to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner expeditiously.
Subject to above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
__________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.
26.12.2005TVK/NSR