THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
W.A.No.1469 of 2002
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
05.07.2002
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11999 of 2002.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant/writ petitioner was serving as an Upper Division Clerk in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') and as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Minister for taking action against some senior officers on account of alleged corruption. The Board issued a show cause notice to the appellant/writ petitioner on 03.10.1996 and the show cause notice was in respect of certain T.A. bills submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner with an allegation that he has not, in fact, travelled on 28.05.1994. There were other charges also in the show cause notice. However, there was no such charge of making a complaint against senior officers. The appellant/writ petitioner did submit a reply and also demanded a departmental enquiry in the matter. However, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order on 17.04.1997 inflicting the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. An appeal was also preferred in the matter and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal by passing an order on 18.06.2002. The appellant/writ petitioner has thereafter preferred the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
2
The moot question before this Court is whether the major punishment i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect could have been inflicted upon the appellant/writ petitioner without holding departmental enquiry or not (see Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab1).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, has held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and therefore the same could not have been inflicted upon the appellant/writ petitioner without holding a detailed departmental enquiry. Otherwise also, in the present case, it was the appellant/writ petitioner who demanded a detailed enquiry in the matter and in spite of his request made to the Disciplinary Authority, no enquiry has been held.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The appellant/writ petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits flowing out of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ _______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 18.01.2022 JSU 1 1990 Law Suit (SC) 508