Telangana High Court
WP/26898/2006 of B.M. Reddy Vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Bus Depot, on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 26898 of 2006 Dated: 27.12.2006 Between: B.M. Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, aged 37 years, Conductor (E.255699), APSRTC, Nalgonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda, Nalgonda
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 26898 of 2006
Dated: 27.12.2006
Between:
B.M. Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, aged 37 years, Conductor (E.255699),APSRTC, Nalgonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
AND
.... PETITIONER
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda,Nalgonda District.
.....RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWrit Petition No. 26898 of 2006
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-APSRTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him,alleging that while conducting the bus on route Chandur – Mall on29.06.1999 he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities. On thebasis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the impugned finalorder-cum-show cause notice, dated 16.09.1999 was issued. In this,the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of oneyear with cumulative effect was straight away imposed, andexplanation was sought from the petitioner, as to why the period ofsuspension shall not be treated as not on duty. Aggrieved by thesame, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent,without furnishing copy of enquiry report and without affording anyopportunity of hearing to the petitioner, straight away issued theimpugned proceedings imposing punishment of deferment of annualincrement for a period of one year with cumulative effect and callingupon the petitioner to show cause as to why the suspension periodshould not be treated as not on duty. He further submitted that theissue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the orders ofthis Court in W.P. No. 18299 of 2005, dated 05.09.2005. LearnedStanding Counsel for the respondent-Corporation admitted the same. He, however, opposed the relief contending that after considering the entire material on record, the impugned order was passed, and nointerference is called for therewith.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
The issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely coveredby the orders of this Court in W.P. 18299 of 2005, dated 05.09.2005. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under:
“Strictly speaking, the impugned order deserves tobe set aside, and the matter needs to be remanded. However, having regard to the fact that nearly six yearshave elapsed, this Court does not find it proper, tosubject the petitioner to another set of proceedings. Taking the totality of the circumstances, into account,the punishment of stoppage of increment shall betreated, as the one without cumulative effect. However,the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetarybenefit, upto the date of this order, on account of themodification of the punishment.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs.”
Hence, following the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 18299 of2005, dated 05.09.2005, the present writ petition is also disposed ofwith the following direction.
The impugned order dated 16.09.1999, passed by therespondent, imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment fora period of one year with cumulative effect, is modified to that ofstoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect. However, thepetitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out ofthis order, but shall be entitled to fixation of pay only.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
___________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.