Telangana High Court
WP/27040/2006 of M.a. Hameed E-89917, Conductor, Vs The APSRTC repby Regional Manager, on 28 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 27040 of 2006 DATED: 28.12.2006 Between: M.A. Hameed petitioner And The APSRTC Rep by its Regional Manager, Mahaboobnagar and another Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 27040of2006
DATED: 28.12.2006
Between:M.A. Hameed petitionerAnd
The APSRTCRep by its Regional Manager,Mahaboobnagar and another Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO. 27040 of 2006
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 petitioner is working as a Conductor in the respondent-APSRTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated againsthim, alleging cash and ticket irregularities. On the basis of the reportsubmitted by the checking officials, a charge sheet dated 30.6.2001was issued and petitioner was suspended pending enquiry. Theenquiry officer submitted his report dated 4.12.2001 holding thepetitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him. Based on thereport of the enquiry officer, without issuing a show cause notice,proceedings dated 28.12.2001 were issued imposing the punishmentof deferment of the annual increment for a period of two years withcumulative effect, and explanation was sought from the petitioner, as towhy the period of suspension shall not be treated, as not on duty. Thepetitioner submitted his comments/objections to the enquiry reportdated 15.12.2001, however, without considering the same theimpugned order was passed. Hence, the petitioner filed the presentwrit petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondentNo.2, without furnishing copy of enquiry report and without affordingany opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, straight away issued theimpugned proceedings imposing punishment of deferment of annualincrement for a period of two years with cumulative effect and callingupon the petitioner to show cause as to why the suspension periodshould not be treated as not on duty. He further submitted that theissue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the orders ofthis Court in W.P. No. 18299 of 2005, dated 05.09.2005. LearnedStanding Counsel for the respondents-Corporation admitted the same. He, however, opposed the relief contending that after considering theentire material on record, the impugned order was passed, and nointerference is called for therewith.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation.
The issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely coveredby the orders of this Court in W.P. 18299 of 2005, dated 05.09.2005.Hence, following the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 18299 of 2005,dated 05.09.2005, the present writ petition is also disposed of with thefollowing direction.
The impugned order dated 28.12.2001, passed by respondentNo.2, imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for aperiod of two years with cumulative effect, is modified to that ofdeferment of annual increment for a period of two years withoutcumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to anymonetary benefits arising out of this order, but shall be entitled tofixation of pay only.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
DATE: 28.12.2006Tvk
_____________
N.V.RAMANA,J
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 27040of2006
DATED: 28.12.2006