WA/2479/2005 of The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vs P.L. Rao, on 20 December 2005

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO

and

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

WRIT APPEAL NO.2479 of 2005

20[th] December 2005

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated02.11.2005 in W.P.NO.23524 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

AND

...APPELLANT

P.L. Rao, S/o, Madhavarao,Huzurabad, Karimnagar, District.

...RESPONDENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO

And

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

WRIT APPEAL NO.2479 of 2005

JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao)

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation andthe learned counsel appearing for the respondent. At their request, the Writ Appealitself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

The appellant/Corporation seeks to assail the order dated 02.11.2005 inW.P.No.23524 of 2005 filed at the instance of the respondent/employee, who soughta writ against the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of six monthswith cumulative effect on certain allegations. Factually, on the ground that therespondent was unauthorisedly absent for duties, action was taken against him andorders were passed with penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of sixmonths with cumulative effect. The same was challenged in the Writ Petition. Whiletaking into consideration the fact that there was no departmental enquiry, the learnedSingle Judge opined that major punishment was imposed. Therefore, thepunishment was varied with and instead of penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect; it was modified as penalty ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect.

Having regard to the fact that the said variation is purely discretionary, we areaccepting the finding as arrived at by the learned Single Judge. We do not find anyground to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

_________________(B.PRAKASH RAO, J)

___________________

(DR G.YETHIRAJULU, J)

20[th] December 2005RRB