THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.213 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel
for the appellants and Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.40924 of 2014 filed by the respondent as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by appellant No.2 imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by two incremental stages having cumulative effect. By the order dated 15.12.2018, learned Single Judge took the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect is modified to 2 that of without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the respondent was modified.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no reasons were assigned by the learned Single Judge while modifying the aforesaid punishment. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in identical matters, being W.A.No.474 of 2019, dated 01.09.2022 (Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. M. Ashalu) and W.A.No.440 of 2019, dated 17.10.2022 (APSRTC (NOW TSRTC) v. V.Veeraswamy) this Court had upheld the similar order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Respondent is a driver serving in the establishment of the appellants. A charge sheet was issued to him on 04.05.2010 alleging that he had committed certain cash and ticket irregularities which was construed to be a misconduct within the meaning of the service regulations. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent whereafter disciplinary authority passed an order on 28.10.2010 terminating the respondent from service. When respondent filed appeal before appellant 3 No.2, being the appellate authority, the order of termination from service was set aside, whereafter the penalty was modified vide the order dated 28.04.2011. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that by the order dated 28.04.2011, three penalties were imposed upon the respondent i.e., i) reduction of pay by two incremental stages having cumulative effect; ii) period from the date of removal to reinstatement would be treated as dies non; iii) respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.500.00 towards security deposit as per the circular instruction notice.
6. This Court in M. Ashalu's case and V.Veeraswamy's case (supra) considered the identical facts and noted that there was gross procedural impropriety in conducting the domestic enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings. Due procedure was not followed before imposing the major penalty. Imposition of such penalty without following the due process would warrant setting aside the same in its entirety. However, it was noted that as the respondent had not questioned the modified punishment, this Court declined to enter into that aspect of the matter. In the 4 circumstances, this Court held that learned Single Judge was justified in modifying the punishment imposed on the respondent from one having cumulative effect to that of without cumulative effect.
7. That being the position and following the above decisions, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 28.11.2022 vs