Telangana High Court
WP/24536/2004 of E. Ravinder, Vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC, on 29 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24536 of 2004 Between: E. Ravinder, S/o. Kondiah, Hindu, APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANUWRIT PETITION NO : 24536 of 2004
Between:
E. Ravinder, S/o. Kondiah, Hindu, APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District.2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (Redesignated as Divisional Manager, Nagarkunrool), Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District.
.....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 Writof Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in imposing thepunishment of deferment of annual increment of the petitioner for a period oftwo years which shall have effect on petitioners future increments, as modifiedby the R2 herein to that of one year which shall have effect in petitioner's futureincrements, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of principlesof natural justice by setting aside the Final Order No. 01/2(1)/95-WNP dated27-5-96 of R1 and consequential order dated 25-7-96 of R2 herein andconsequently direct the respondents to add the deferred increments.Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
The Court at the stage of admission, made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24536 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 Driver in the respondent-Corporation. Hewas issued a charge memo on 13-04-1995 for having caused an accident to thevehicle bearing Regn.No.AP9Z 5533 driven by him and after receiving theexplanation of the petitioner, the final orders were passed on 27-05-1996 by the1[st] respondent, imposing the penalty of withholding of one incremental stage fora period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner questioned the orderon the ground that though there is reduction of annual increment for a period oftwo years with cumulative effect is a major penalty, the 1[st] respondent passedthe impugned order without conducting any enquiry as required under the rules.Challenge to the proceedings dated 27-05-1996 the petitioner carried the matterin appeal before the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent allowed the appealthrough his proceedings dated 25-07-1996 by reducing the punishment from twoincrements to one increment deferment, which shall have an effect on his futureincrements. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
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 Courtheld 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 8 years. There are latches on his part in asserting his rightregarding this issue. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,though the impugned order is liable to be set aside, on account of long lapse oftime in filing the writ petition and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Courti n Kulwant Singh Gill (1 supra), I deem it consider that the punishment ofdeferment of one increment with cumulative effect, as modified by the 2[nd]respondent in appeal, can be reduced with slight modification. Therefore, theorder of punishment is modified as deferment of one increment withoutcumulative effect. The petitioner is not entitled for the difference of the amount,if any, by virtue of this order for the period from the date of the impugned ordertill the date of this order. But, he is entitled to get increments on notionalcalculation from the date of this order to which he is entitled, as he had notbeen imposed penalty of reduction of one annual increment without cumulativeeffect.
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. Inthe circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Kvr December 29, 2004
___________________
To
1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District.
2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (Redesignated as Divisional Manager,Nagarkunrool), Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District.Nagarkunrool), Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District.
3. 2 C.D copies.