Telangana High Court
WP/24368/2004 of K.K.Swamy Vs The Depot 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 : 24368 of 2004 Between: K.K.Swamy S/o.K.Bheemaiah (E-280817), APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus
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 : 24368 of 2004
Between:
K.K.Swamy S/o.K.Bheemaiah
(E-280817), APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot Mahabubnagar District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District.
2 The Divisional Manager,Senior Manager, (Operations)APSRTC Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in witholding the petitioner'sannual increments for a period of two years which shall have effect on futureincrements as modified by the R2 herein for a period of one year instead two yearsis bad, arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justiceand also against the orders of this Hon'ble Court and also apex court by settingaside the Proc.No.02/62(75)/94 WNP Dt.12.3.1995 and consequential orderdt.10.10.1995 of R2 herein and consequently direct the respondents to add thewithholded increments.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.Y.VINAYAKA SWAMY, STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR APSRTC
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 conductor in APSRTC. He was issued acharge memo dated 06.10.1994 for cash and ticket irregularities. Thepetitioner had submitted his explanation. The same was taken intoaccount and the 1[st] respondent has passed orders dated 12.3.1995imposing stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for aperiod of two years. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal beforethe 2[nd] respondent who reduced the punishment to that of defermentof increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Thepetitioner challenges the same in this writ petition on the ground thatthough, what was imposed is a major penalty, the respondents didnot hold domestic enquiry.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent.
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 P.Vinayaka Swamy on the otherhand submits that the writ petition cannot be maintained since it isfiled 10 years after the impugned order and the same deserves to bedismissed on the ground of latches.
It is true that the writ petition is filed 10 years after the 2[nd] respondenthas passed orders imposing penalty by reducing for one year. In thenormal course of things, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed onthe ground of latches. However, in the matter of rights of employees,the Supreme Court in GURUMAL SING v.PRINCIPAL,GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF EDUCATION has held that thebelated challenge of the orders detrimental to the interests of theemployees should not result in total denial of relief, and at the mostthey can be denied back wages. Therefore, the writ petition cannotbe dismissed on the ground of latches alone.
Conclusion
Through the impugned order the 1[st] respondent has imposed thepenalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect.No departmental enquiry was conducted. From a perusal of theClassiffication Control & Appeal Regulations, it is evident that thepenalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect cannotbe treated as a minor penalty. Therefore, the same could have beenimposed only after conducting enquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Kulvant Singh Gill’s case (1 supra) held that major penalty cannotbe imposed without conducting the departmental enquiry. In that viewof the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained.
As a result of setting aside of the impugned order the matter has tobe remitted back to the 2[nd] respondent for fresh consideration.However, having regard to the fact that the order was passed more than a decade ago, this Court feels it just and proper to treat thepunishment against the petitioner, as the one for stoppage of oneincrement without cumulative effect. Since, the petitioner haschallenged the impugned order after 10 years, it is held that he shallnot 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, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District.
2 The Divisional Manager,Senior Manager, (Operations)APSRTC Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District.
3 2 CD copies