Telangana High Court
WP/24450/2004 of S. Ramakrishna, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24450 of 2004 Between: M.S.Ali, S/o.late Sahid Ali Occ: Conductor, E.No.109170,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24450 of 2004
Between:
M.S.Ali, S/o.late Sahid Ali
Occ: Conductor, E.No.109170, R/o.5-82
Ansar Colony, Barkathpura, Nalgonda
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTCBus Depot, Nalgonda2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC
Bus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ ofCertiorari, quash and impugned Proc.No.P1/1(42)/94-NLG dated 26.10.1994 indeferring increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect without holding anenquiry as bad in law, in violation of Art.14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and inviolation of Reg.12(2) of the C.C.&A Reg. Of APSRTC, 1963 and consequentlydirect the 2[nd] respondent to restore the said deferred increments along with allconsequential benefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD, STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR APSRTC
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 APSRTC. He was issueda charge memo dated 27.07.1994 for having remained absentunauthorisedly for duty and habituated to irregular attendance. Thepetitioner had submitted his explanation. The same was taken intoaccount and the 1[st] respondent has passed orders dated 26.10.1994imposing stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for aperiod of one year. The petitioner challenges the same in this writpetition on the ground that though, what was imposed is a majorpenalty, the respondents did not hold domestic enquiry.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standingcounsel for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon ajudgment of Supreme Court in KULVANT SINGH GILL V.STATE OFPUNJAB as well as a decision of this court in S.K.MASTHANv.MANAGING DIRECTOR.
The learned standing counsel Sri V.T.M.Prasad on the other handsubmits that the writ petition cannot be maintained since it is filed 10years after the impugned order and the same deserves to bedismissed on the ground of latches.
It is true that the writ petition is filed 10 years after the 1[st] respondenthas passed orders imposing penalty. In the normal course of things,the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches.However, in the matter of rights of employees, the Supreme Court inGURUMAL SING v.PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OFEDUCATION has held that the belated challenge of the ordersdetrimental to the interests of the employees should not result in totaldenial of relief, and at the most they can be denied back wages.Therefore, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground oflatches alone.
Through the impugned order the respondents have imposed thepenalty of stoppage of annual increment for one year with cumulativeeffect. No departmental enquiry was conducted. From a perusal ofthe Classiffication Control & Appeal Regulations, it is evident that thepenalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect can betreated as a minor penalty. Therefore, the same could have beenimposed only after conducting enquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Kulvant Singh Gill’s case (1 supra) held that major penalty cannotbe imposed without conducting the departmental enquiry. In that viewof the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained.
As a result of setting aside of the impugned order the matter has tobe remitted to the 2[nd] respondent for fresh consideration. However,
having regard to the fact that the order was passed more than adecade ago, this Court feels it just and proper to treat the punishmentagainst the petitioner, as the one for stoppage of one incrementwithout cumulative effect. Since, the petitioner has challenged theimpugned order after 10 years, it is held that he shall not be entitledfor any back wages or arrears of pay, as a consequence of themodification of the punishment. The petitioner shall however beentitled for refixation of pay with prospective effect.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction.No costs.
____________
28.12.2004
bsv
To
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC
Bus Depot, Nalgonda
2. The Depot Manager, APSRTCBus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District3. 2 CD copies3. 2 CD copies