Telangana High Court
WP/24398/2004 of N. Basava Rao, Vs The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24398 of 2004 Between: N. Basava Rao, S/o Late Venkateshwara Rao, Conductor,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANUWRIT PETITION NO : 24398 of 2004
Between:
N. Basava Rao, S/o Late Venkateshwara Rao, Conductor, E.No.91223 R/o Near New Bus Stand, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Division,Nalgonda.2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ ofCertiorari , quash the impugned proc. No. 02/104(12)/81-SRPT dt. 4-6-1981 asconfirmed by the 1st respondent vide Proc.No. PA/19(32)/2003-DVM, SRPT dt. 10-12-2003 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the deferred incrementsalong with all consequential benefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUDCounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FORAPSRTC)
The Court at the stage of admission, made the following :
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 working as a conductor in APSRTC. He was issueda charge memo dated 24.04.1981 for having committed cash andticket irregularities. The petitioner had submitted his explanation. Thesame was taken into account and the 2[nd] respondent has passedorders dated 4.6.1981 imposing stoppage of one increment withcumulative effect for a period of one year six months. The petitionerchallenges the same in this writ petition on the ground that though,what was imposed is a major penalty, the respondents did not holddomestic enquiry.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon ajudgment of Supreme Court in KULVANT SINGH GILL V.STATE OFPUNJAB as well as a decision of this court in S.K.MASTHANv.MANAGING DIRECTOR.
The learned standing counsel Sri V.T.M.Prasad on the other handsubmits that the writ petition cannot be maintained since it is filedmore than 20 years after the impugned order and the same deservesto be dismissed on the ground of latches.
It is true that the writ petition is filed more than 21 years after the 2[nd]respondent has passed orders imposing penalty. In the normalcourse of things, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on theground of latches. However, in the matter of rights of employees, theSupreme Court in GURUMAL SING v.PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENTCOLLEGE OF EDUCATION has held that the belated challenge ofthe orders detrimental to the interests of the employees should notresult in total denial of relief, and at the most they can be denied backwages. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on theground of latches alone.
Through the impugned order the respondents have imposed thepenalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year sixmonths with cumulative effect. No departmental enquiry wasconducted. From a perusal of the Classiffication Control & AppealRegulations, it is evident that the penalty of stoppage of oneincrement with cumulative effect can be treated as a minor penalty.Therefore, the same could have been imposed only after conductingenquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulvant Singh Gill’s case (1supra) held that major penalty cannot be imposed without conductingthe departmental enquiry. In that view of the matter the impugnedorder cannot be sustained.
As a result of setting aside of the impugned order the matter has tobe remitted to the 2[nd] respondent for fresh consideration. However,
having regard to the fact that the order was passed more than twodecades ago, this Court feels it just and proper to treat thepunishment against the petitioner, as the one for stoppage of annualincrement for a period of one year six months without cumulativeeffect. Since, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order after20 years, it is held that he shall not be entitled for any back wages orarrears of pay, as a consequence of the modification of thepunishment. The petitioner shall however be entitled for refixation ofpay with prospective effect.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction.No costs.
____________
28.12.2004
bsv
To
1 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Division,Nalgonda.
2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.
3 2 CD copies