WP/33733/2010 of M.R. Chary Vs Vice Chairman and Managing Director, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

Though in normal circumstances this Court would have beenreluctant to entertain any lis concerning the validity of a proceedingdated 09[th] May 1995, at this distant point of time, but however, in viewof the specific averment contained in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filedin support of this writ petition, I consider it appropriate to entertain thiswrit petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as aConductor he has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and theDepot Manager, Huzurabad, by his order dated 09[th] May 1995imposed on him the punishment of withholding one annual gradeincrement for a period of one year, which shall have the effect on hisfuture increment. In other words, one increment has been withheldwith cumulative effect by the Depot Manager.

3. It is stated at the Bar that this Court entertaining a similar claim inW.P. No.11790 of 2005, rested upon the ratio laid down by theSupreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Panjab[[1]]held that imposition of the punishment of withholding of one annual gradeincrement with cumulative effect amounts to imposing of majorpunishment. The procedure prescribed under APSRTC Employees’(CC&A) Rules requires an inquiry to be conducted before imposition ofany major punishment. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted. The Depot Manager obviously lost sight of the distinction betweenwithholding of one increment without cumulative effect, which is aminor punishment, which can be imposed after putting the employeeconcerned on notice and after considering his explanation. Whereas,withholding of one increment with cumulative effect being a majorpunishment requires an inquiry to be conducted in the presence of theemployee. In view of blatant illegality, this Court felt that the order ofpunishment can be suitably modified by severing that portion of theorder which sought to impose the punishment of withholding oneannual grade increment with cumulative effect. By this severance restof the order becomes sustainable.

4. The employee being a conductor of the APSRTC I consider itappropriate to allow this writ petition though 15 years period haselapsed since the order of punishment.

5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 09[th]May 1995 is modified to the extent of deleting the cumulative effecttherefrom. Now, the order shall read as if one annual grade incrementof the writ petitioner shall stand withheld without cumulative effect. Accordingly the pay of the writ petitioner will be re-fixed, but howeverthe writ petitioner shall not be entitled for payment of any arrears onthat count. The re-fixation will only enure for future and consequently itwill only help him in his enhanced terminal benefits. No costs.

Date: December 31, 2010.BSB

________________________________

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J