WP/33220/2010 of K. Sunil Kumar, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on 29 December 2010

ORDER:

Though in normal circumstances this Court would have beenreluctant to entertain any lis concerning the validity of a proceedingdated 31[st] July 1992, but however, in view of the specific avermentcontained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of this writpetition, I consider it appropriate to entertain this writ 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, Pulivendula, by his order dated 31[st] July 1992imposed on him the punishment of withholding one annual gradeincrement for a period of one year, which shall have the effect of 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 thatimposition of the punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment 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 and in view ofhis specific undertaking given in the affidavit filed in support of thecase that he will not be claiming any monetary benefit from theproposed deletion of the cumulative effect, but he will only be entitledfor the terminal benefits, I consider it appropriate to allow this writpetition though 18 years period has elapsed since the order ofpunishment.

5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 31[st]July 1992 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 29, 2010.BSB

[1]1991 Supp (1) SCC 504