Telangana High Court
WP/27285/2005 of D. Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Regional Manager, APSRTC, on 23 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27285 of 2005 Date:23.12.2005 D.Sreenivasa Rao. --------PETITIONER The Regional Manager and others. ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in APSRTC. He was issued a Charge Sheet, dated 31.03.2001, alleging that he caused
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27285 of 2005
Date:23.12.2005
D.Sreenivasa Rao.
The Regional Manager and others.
--------PETITIONER
---------RESPONDENTS
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 employed as a Driver in APSRTC. He was issued a ChargeSheet, dated 31.03.2001, alleging that he caused an accident, while driving thebus on 23.02.2001, and that he was required to submit the explanation as towhy necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. It is statedthat the petitioner submitted his explanation to the same. Thereafter, the thirdrespondent passed an order, dated 23.08.2001, imposing the penalty ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of one year and further directed thatit shall have the cumulative effect on the future increments. Aggrieved thereby,the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same wasdismissed. Hence, this Writ Petition.
The only point urged by Sri Y.Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner,is that the 3[rd] respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual incrementfor a period of one year with cumulative effect without conducting departmentalenquiry. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court inKULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB and submits that stoppageof increment is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conductingdepartmental enquiry.
Sri R.Manmadha Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents, on the other hand, submits that the penalty imposed against thepetitioner itself is minimal, if the lapse on his part is taken into account.
It is a matter of record that the 3[rd] respondent imposed the penalty ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, onthe allegation that the petitioner caused an accident. Though a charge sheetwas issued to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed, no departmentalenquiry was conducted. I n KULWANTH SINGH GILL’s case (supra), theSupreme Court held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is amajor penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conducting departmentalenquiry. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside,leaving it open to the 3[rd] respondent to pass fresh orders. To avoid furtherdelay and complication in the mater, this Court is of the view that the impugnedorder can be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment withoutcumulative effect.
Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the order, dated23.08.2001, shall be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for aperiod of one year without cumulative effect and that the petitioner shall not beentitled for any monetary benefits up to the date of this order. There shall be noorder as to costs.
Jsu
_________
23.12.2005