Telangana High Court
WP/27588/2005 of M.V.S. Reddy, Vs The APSRTC, Rep by its Regional Manager, on 27 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27588 of 2005 Date:27.12.2005 M.V.S.Reddy. --------PETITIONER APSRTC, rep. By its Managing Director and others. ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a conductor in APSRTC. He was issued a Charge Sheet, dated 21.12.1995, alleging
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27588 of 2005
Date:27.12.2005
M.V.S.Reddy.
APSRTC, rep. By its Managing Director 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 conductor in APSRTC. He was issued aCharge Sheet, dated 21.12.1995, alleging certain cash and ticket irregularitiesand that he was required to submit the explanation as to why necessarydisciplinary action shall not be taken against him. It is stated that the petitionersubmitted his explanation to the same. Thereafter, the second respondentpassed an order, dated 21.06.1997, imposing the penalty of stoppage of annualincrement for a period of one year and further directed that it shall have thecumulative effect on the future increments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitionerfiled an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed.Hence, this Writ Petition.
The only point urged by Sri S.M.Subhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner,is that the second 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 P.Vinayakaswamy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, 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 second respondent imposed the penalty ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect onthe allegation that the petitioner committed certain cash and ticket irregularities.Though a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before the penalty wasimposed, no departmental enquiry was conducted. I n KULWANTH SINGHGILL’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that stoppage of increments withcumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except byconducting departmental enquiry.
In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside,leaving it open to the 2[nd] 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, dated21.06.1997, 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.
_________
27.12.2005