Telangana High Court
WP/27321/2005 of C.V.Subbanna, Vs The APSRTC, Rep by its Regional Manager, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27321 OF 2005 DATED: 26-12-2005 Between: C.V.Subbanna . . .Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa, and others . . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27321 of 2005 O R D E R: The
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27321 OF 2005
DATED: 26-12-2005
Between:
C.V.Subbanna . . .Petitioner
And
The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa,
and others . . . .Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27321 of 2005
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.
O R D E R:
The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in APSRTC. While conductingthe bus, he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities on 05-11-1997. Hewas issued a charge sheet, dated 20-11-1997, directing him to explain as towhy necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for the lapseon his part. He submitted his explanation to the same. Without considering thesaid explanation, the 2[nd] respondent passed an order, dated 19-03-1998,imposing penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year withcumulative effect. He challenges the same.
The only point urged by Sri S.M.Subhan, the learned counsel for thepetitioner, is that the 2[nd] respondent imposed a 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 Courtin KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB and submits that stoppageof increment is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conductingdepartmental enquiry.
Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents, 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 2[nd] respondent imposed the penalty ofstoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect onthe allegation that the petitioner was negligent in performing his duties. Thougha charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed, nodepartmental enquiry was conducted. I n KULWANTH SINGH GILL’s case(supra), the Supreme Court held that stoppage of increments with cumulativeeffect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conductingdepartmental enquiry. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot besustained.
In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside,leaving it open to the respondents to pass fresh orders. To avoid further delayand complication in the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned ordercan be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for a period of oneyear without cumulative effect.
Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the order, dated 19-03-1998, passed by the 2[nd] respondent shall be treated as the one for stoppage ofannual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. However,the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit that had accrued upto the date of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
26[th] DECEMBER, 2005.
_________________________
(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)
kvni