Vigilance Security ... vs A.V.R.Kumar,Secbad

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                          AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY



                        WRIT APPEAL No.83 of 2016


JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     Learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough in

informing this Court that W.A.No.117 of 2016 arising out of

the common judgment has already been dismissed by this

Court on 11.03.2016.

     The judgment passed in the aforesaid writ appeal reads

as under:-


             "This appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road
     Transport Corporation and its Depot Manager, Tandur Depot, Tandur,
     Ranga Reddy District calling in question the correctness of the judgment
     rendered by the learned Single Judge in a batch of 4 writ petitions on
     19.11.2015.


             A very short question which engaged the attention of the Court is
     as to whether stoppage of increment with cumulative effect can be
     imposed by the Corporation without following the procedure prescribed
     under the APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations or not?


             The learned Single Judge, before exercising the discretion, has
     noticed the principle set out on the subject by the Supreme Court in
     "Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. Thangappan and another
     [(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 322] and thereafter the learned Single
     Judge allowed the writ petitions in part directing that the punishment
     orders imposed by the competent authority be treated as one of stoppage
     of annual increments without cumulative effect. Learned Single Judge
     has also tempered his discretion by denying to the petitioners any
     monitory benefit arising therefrom.


             In effect, the judgment of the learned single Judge would merely
     remove the element of cascading effect which normally flows from the
     "cumulative effect" that was attached to the order of punishment.
     Illustratively put, if one annual grade increment is withheld with
     cumulative effect, such an employee will loose the benefit of one annual
     grade increment forever. Whereas, if one annual grade increment is
     withheld for a period of one year without cumulative effect, the loss liable
     to be suffered by the employee would get quantified by multiplying the
                                          2




     quantum of money the increment will fetch by '12'. In other words,
     imposition of a punishment without cumulative effect would be
     transitory in nature leaving the employee with an immediate monitory
     loss. Whereas, if the same increment is withheld with cumulative effect,
     the loss can never be recouped and it can travel beyond the retirement
     and the terminal benefits payable to the employee also would be
     impacted. Keeping these factors in mind, it has been held that imposition
     of withholding increments with cumulative effect is liable to be treated as
     'a major punishment' and consequently, the elaborate procedure
     prescribed for imposition of major punishment will have to be followed.
     Wherever, such prescribed procedure has not been followed, it is only
     appropriate that such punishment cannot be allowed to take effect. That
     is what has been done by the learned single Judge.


             Hence, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the
     discretion exercised by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ
     appeal is dismissed. No costs.


             Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
     also stand closed."




     In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the present writ

appeal deserves to be dismissed. The said judgment shall be

applicable mutatis mutandis to the present writ appeal also.

     The     writ     appeal       is   accordingly         dismissed.             The

miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.




                                               ___________________________
                                                   SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ




                                               ___________________________
                                                     A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
29.11.2021

vs