Telangana High Court
WP/24229/2004 of T.K.Swamy S/o.Viswanatha Rao Hindu Vs The Depot Manager APSRTC, on 27 December 2004
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 : 24229 of 2004 Between: T.K.Swamy, S/o.Viswanatha Rao, Hindu Conductor (E-252712)
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. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24229 of 2004
Between:
T.K.Swamy, S/o.Viswanatha Rao,
Hindu Conductor (E-252712) Mahabubnagar Dist.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Depot Manager APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, 2 The Dy.Chief Traffic Manager (Divisional Manager), Mahabubnagar.
.....RESPONDENTS
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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in imposing thepunishment of withholding of petitioners annual increments for a period of twoyears which shall have effect on petitioners future increments as illegal,arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justiceand against the judgments of this Hon'ble court as well as apex court andconsequently set a side the final order in Proc.No.02/95(94)-WNP dt 12-9-1995of the Respondents herein and consequently direct the respondents to pay thewithhold increments and pass such other order or orders.Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
The Court at the admission stage, made the following :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24229 of 2004
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 a conductor in the respondent-Corporation.He was issued a charge memo and after receiving the explanation of thepetitioner, the final orders were passed on 12-09-1995 imposing the penalty ofwithholding of one incremental stage for a period of two years with cumulativeeffect. The petitioner questioned the order on the ground that though there isreduction of annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty, therespondent passed the impugned order without conducting any enquiry asrequired under the rules. Therefore, the order is illegal and it is liable to be setaside.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the SupremeCourt in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1] wherein the Supreme Court held that since the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a majorpunishment, the order cannot be sustained without an enquiry. The petitionertherefore seeks to declare that the order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside.
3. The petitioner after receiving the adverse orders slept over the matterfor a period of 9 years. There are latches on his part in asserting his rightregarding this issue. Though the impugned order is liable to be set aside, onaccount of long lapse of time and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Courtin Kulwant Singh Gill (1 supra), I am of the view that it would be appropriate ifthe punishment imposed on the petitioner is treated as reduction of one annualincrement without cumulative effect. The petitioner is not entitled for thedifference of the amount, if any, by virtue of this order for the period from thedate of the impugned order till the date of this order. But, he is entitled to getincrements on notional calculation from the date of this order to which he isentitled, as he had not been imposed penalty of reduction of one annualincrement without cumulative effect.
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations.
__________________
December 27, 2004
Kvr
To
1. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot,
2. The Dy.Chief Traffic Manager (Divisional Manager)
3. 2 C.D copies.