Telangana High Court
WP/24380/2004 of Y.Linga Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager, Nalgonda, 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 : 24380 of 2004 Between: Y.Linga Reddy, S/o.Bakka Reddy, Conductor, E.No.252257 Nalgonda
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. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24380 of 2004
Between:
Y.Linga Reddy, S/o.Bakka Reddy, Conductor, E.No.252257 Nalgonda Bus Depot, APSRTC, Nalgonda District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
.....RESPONDENT
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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in imposing a punishment ofdeferment of petitioner's annual increment for a period of six months which shallhave effect on petitioners future increments as illegal, arbitrary, unjust andunreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and also against thejudgments of this Hon'ble court as well as apex court by setting aside the final orderNo.02/104(36)/89-NLG dt.23-4-1990 issued by the respondent herein andconsequently direct the respondent to add the increment which was deferred.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESHWER RAO
Counsel for the Respondent : MR.V.T.M.PRASAD, STANDING COUNSEL 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 31.1.1990 for having committed cash andticket irregularities. The petitioner had submitted his explanation. Thesame was taken into account and the respondent has passed ordersdated 23.4.1990 imposing stoppage of annual increment withcumulative effect for a period of six months. The petitioner challengesthe same in this writ petition on the ground that though, what wasimposed is a major penalty, the respondents did not hold domesticenquiry.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standingcounsel for the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon ajudgment of Supreme Court in KULVANT SINGH GILL V.STATE OF
PUNJAB 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 filed 13years after the impugned order and the same deserves to bedismissed on the ground of latches.
It is true that the writ petition is filed 13 years after the respondent haspassed orders imposing penalty. In the normal course of things, thewrit petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches.However, in the matter of rights of employees, the Supreme Court inGURUMAL SING v.PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OFEDUCATION has held that the belated challenge of the ordersdetrimental to the interests of the employees should not result in totaldenial of relief, and at the most they can be denied back wages.Therefore, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground oflatches alone.
Through the impugned order the respondent has imposed thepenalty of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for sixmonths. No departmental enquiry was conducted. From a perusal ofthe Classiffication Control & Appeal Regulations, it is evident that thepenalty of stoppage of increment for a period of six months withcumulative effect can be treated as a minor penalty. Therefore, thesame could have been imposed only after conducting enquiry. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in Kulvant Singh Gill’s case (1 supra) heldthat major penalty cannot be imposed without conducting thedepartmental enquiry. In that view of the matter the impugned ordercannot be sustained.
As a result of setting aside of the impugned order the matter has tobe remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration. However,having regard to the fact that the order was passed more than adecade ago, this Court feels it just and proper to treat the punishmentagainst the petitioner, as the one for stoppage of annual increment fora period of six months without cumulative effect. Since, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order after 13 years, it is held that heshall not be entitled for any back wages or arrears of pay, as aconsequence of the modification of the punishment. The petitionershall however be entitled for refixation of pay with prospective effect.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction.No costs.
____________
28.12.2004
bsv
To
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
2. 2 CD copies