Telangana High Court
WP/27432/2005 of Venigalla Ravindra Babu S/o Venkateswra rao Vs the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Region, on 23 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27432 of 2005 Date:23.12.2005 Venigalla Ravindra Babu. --------PETITIONER The Regional Manager and others. ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in APSRTC. He was issued a Charge Sheet, dated 11.11.1992, alleging that he
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27432 of 2005
Date:23.12.2005
Venigalla Ravindra Babu.
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 11.11.1992, alleging that he capsized the vehicle bearing No.A-Z1201 of GVRM Depot, while driving on 22.10.1992, on the route from GVRM toGopavarigudem, and he was required to submit the explanation as to whynecessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. It is stated thatthe petitioner submitted his explanation to the same. Thereafter, the thirdrespondent passed an order, dated 21.12.1992, 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 states that noorder has been passed thereon. Hence, this Writ Petition.
The only point urged by Sri Peeta Raman, the learned counsel for the petitioner,is that the third respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annualincrement for a period of one year with cumulative effect without conductingdepartmental enquiry. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Courti n KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB and submits thatstoppage of increment is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except byconducting departmental 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 third respondent imposed the penalty ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, onthe allegation that the petitioner capsized the vehicle bearing No.A-Z 1201 ofGVRM Depot, while driving on 22.10.1992, on the route from GVRM toGopavarigudem. Though a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before thepenalty was imposed, no departmental enquiry was conducted. In KULWANTHSINGH GILL’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that stoppage ofincrements with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed,except by conducting departmental enquiry. In view of the same, the impugnedorder cannot be sustained.
In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside,leaving it open to the third 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, dated21.12.1992, 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.
_________
23.12.2005