Telangana High Court
WP/24172/2004 of R.N.Shelly, Vs The Depot Manager, on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24172 of 2004 Between: R.N.Shelly, s/o R.R.Shelly, Conductor, R/o 281/C, CIB Quarters,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANUWRIT PETITION NO : 24172 of 2004
Between:
R.N.Shelly, s/o R.R.Shelly, Conductor, R/o 281/C, CIB Quarters, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Musheerabad Depot, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto call for the records from the respondent herein and issue writ, order ordirection more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring theproceedings No.02/95 (20)/2004-MSRD dated 24-08-2004 in postponing theAnnual Increment next falls due for a period of 2 years which shall also haveeffect on the future increments of the petitioner duly treating the period ofsuspension as not on duty for the purpose of Leave, Salary, Increments,Seniority and Gratuity as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Principles of naturaljustice, contrary to APSRTC Service Regulations, un-fair labour practice andalso in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequentlyset-aside the same.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C. for APSRC)
The Court at the admission stage, 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:
Challenging the proceedings No.02/95 (20)/2004-MSRD, dated 24-08-2004 in postponing the Annual Increment next falls due for a period of twoyears which shall also have effect on the future increments of the petitionerduly treating the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of leave,salary, increments, seniority etc., the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings ofthe disciplinary authority are so perverse and that without giving any reasons,the period of suspension was treated ‘not on duty’ and therefore, he prays toquash the proceedings.
3. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondentcontended that the statutory appeal is provided to the petitioner to file an appealand therefore, the petitioner has to avail that remedy in stead of filing thepresent writ petition.
4. No doubt, exhausting the alternative remedy is not a bar for exercisingthe jurisdiction of this Court but at the same time the jurisdiction of theauthorities who issued impugned proceedings is not under challenge and also itis not the case of violation of principles of natural justice. The contentionsraised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition are left openand the same shall have to be considered by the appellate authority after dulyrecording the reasons.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to thepetitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority as contemplated underthe regulations within a period of two months from the date of impugnedproceedings. Since the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court, theperiod spent in this Court is to be excluded for excluding the limitation. Hence,the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal with delay condonation petition andthe same shall have to be considered by the respondent in view of the fact that the petitioner prosecuted proceedings in the Court and the period spent by thisCourt shall have to be excluded.
6 . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. In the circumstances,there shall be no order as to costs.
Kvr
TO
___________________ December27, 2004
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC,
Musheerabad Depot, Hyderabad.
2 Two C.D. Copies.