WP/26672/2006 of G.Brahmam Vs The APSRTC., rep.by its Divisional Manager, prakasam on 22 December 2006

Order:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamusdeclaring the action of second respondent in issuing theproceedings NO.02/197(13)97-KNG, dated 06-9-2003, imposingpunishment of deferment of annual increment of the petitioner for aperiod of two years with cumulative effect, as illegal and arbitraryand to pass such other suitable orders.

The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in APSRTC. Hewas issued a charge sheet, dated 26-11-1999, alleging that whenthe petitioner was performing his duties on 19-6-1997 theChief Inspector gave a false complaint of assault against thepetitioner and that he was required to submit the explanation, as towhy necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, forwhich he submitted explanation on 13-12-1999 denying the chargesframed against him. Respondent authorities without conducting anyregular departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunitypassed the impugned order imposing punishment of withholding theannual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that stoppage ofincrement of an employee with cumulative effect is a major penalty,and the same cannot be imposed without conducting regularDepartmental Enquiry as contemplated under the APSRTCEmployees’ (CC&A) Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). Insupport of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of”the Supreme Court in “Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1].

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Corporation vehemently opposed the saidcontention and submitted that respondent No.1, after carefulconsideration of the entire evidence available on record togetherwith the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has passed theimpugned order, hence, no reasons to interfere with the same.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused thematerial available on record.

It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 imposed punishmentof deferment of annual increment for a period of one year withcumulative effect, which is a major punishment. Admittedly, noregular departmental enquiry was conducted though the chargesheet was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. TheApex Court in “Kulwanth Singh Gill’s Case (1 supra) held thatstoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penaltyand it cannot be imposed without conducting the departmentalenquiry. Since the punishment of stoppage of annual increment fora period of one year was imposed without conducting regulardepartmental enquiry violating the judgment of the Apex Court, theimpugned order cannot be sustained.

In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs tobe set aside leaving it open to respondent No.1 to pass fresh orders,but to avoid further litigation in the matter, I deem it appropriate todispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

“ the impugned order dated 06-9-2003, passedby respondent-authorities imposing punishment ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of oneyear with cumulative effect, is modified to that ofstoppage of annual increment without cumulative

Conclusion

effect. The petitioner shall not be entitled to anymonetary benefits arising out of this order, butshall be entitled to fixation of pay only ”.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admissionstage. No costs.

Date:22-12-2006.ISL/NSR

___________________

N.V. RAMANA,

J

1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504