1 RRN,J
WP No.5871 of 2016
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.5871 of 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings No.01/2(10)/99-MDR, dated 29.09.1999, and consequential impugned proceedings No. Steno/19(1)/2001- DY.CTM:KMM, dated 27.01.2001, and proceedings No.Steno/19(32)/2001- RM:KMM, dated 30.04.2001 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently, by setting aside the impugned proceedings.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner while working as a driver on vehicle No.AP-10Z-691 on route Madira to Tiruvuru on 14.08.1999 had caused an accident, due to which, a boy sustained severe injuries and died while undergoing treatment at Hospital. As a sequel thereto, the 4th respondent issued chargesheet dated 07.09.1999 for his alleged rash and negligent driving, for which, he submitted an explanation on 20.09.1999 denying all those allegations. The 4th respondent, without conducting proper enquiry and without issuing show-cause notice, issued proceedings dated 29.09.1999 imposing punishment postponing one annual increment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent, who in turn rejected his appeal vide proceedings dated 2 RRN,J WP No.5871 of 2016 27.01.2001. On review being filed by the petitioner, the same was dismissed by the 2nd respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 30.04.2001.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent Corporation denying all the averments in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition stating that the accident was on account of anticipation and rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and that the charge leveled against the petitioner proved, for which, penalty of postponing of annual increment for a period of one year which shall have effect on future increment was imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings No.01/2(10)/99-MDR, dated 29.09.1999 and aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Khammam, against the proceedings of Depot Manager, Madhira. The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager has opined that the irregularities committed by the petitioner are grave and serious in nature, and the Depot Manager was justified in punishing the petitioner. The procedure has been followed by the 2nd respondent while issuing the impugned proceedings dated 30.04.2001. He submits that the petitioner has not filed appeal within a period of two months from the date of proceedings of the 4th respondent and filed the same after lapse of more than two months. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
3 RRN,J
WP No.5871 of 2016
4. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that postponement of the increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty as per the Regulations of the Corporation and the same shall be preceded by disciplinary proceedings and show-cause notice. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulvant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab1. He also submits that criminal case registered against the writ petitioner was ended in acquittal in vide judgment in CC No.190 of 1999 dated 24.01.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madira, Khammam District.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents Corporation, while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit submits that there is no whisper in the entire affidavit about the delay in preferring the present petition after lapse of more than 15 years. He also submits that such an inordinate delay cannot be condoned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner ought to have filed the appeal within a reasonable period preferably within a period of two months from the date of impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent and sought for dismissal of 1 [1999 Suppl.(1)SCC 504] 4 RRN,J WP No.5871 of 2016 the writ petition. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of this Court in; (i) W.A.No.1079 of 2014, dated 30.07.2014; (ii) W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 & 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021;
7. In this case, it is to be seen that due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of the petitioner in the year 1999, punishment was imposed by the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 29.09.1999. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed appeal before the 3rd respondent, which was rejected on 27.01.2001, which is, even according to the writ petitioner, beyond the stipulated period of two months. The 3rd respondent rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on 27.01.2001 observing as follows:
"Perused the record, the case, P.case and SR, the irregularities committed by the appellant are grave and serious in nature. The DM/MDR was justified in issuing the orders of the said punishment to the driver. The explanation submitted by the appellant in his appeal is not at all convincing. Further the appellant did not submit his appeal within the stipulated period of two months. Therefore, I hereby order that the appeal is REJECTED."
8. That apart, the 2nd respondent also issued proceedings in the year 2001 on 30.04.2001 confirming the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. As argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation, there is no explanation offered by the writ petitioner in preferring the appeal before the 3rd respondent and also about delay in filing the present 5 RRN,J WP No.5871 of 2016 writ petition after a lapse of 15 years. The petitioner did not have any semblance of grievance vis-à-vis punishment for all these 15 years until he files writ petition in the year 2016.
9. Though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulvant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab's case (supra), but the facts and circumstances in the said case are quite different to that of the facts and circumstances in the present case on hand, as such, the said judgment is no way helpful to the petitioner.
10. In similar circumstances, the Full Bench of this Court in P.V.Narayana v. A.P.State Road Transport Corporation2 disposed of batch of writ petitions while dealing with a reference by a learned Single Judge and observed as follows:
"56......Therefore, in Court's considered opinion, Kulwant Singh Gill's case (1991 Suppl.(1)SCC 504) does not confer or clothe an automatic right with the employee to challenge the order of the authority at any time or whenever he wishes. The principles laid down by the Apex Court governing the condonation of delay will certainly and equally have application even in cases where challenge is made to an order imposing the punishment contrary to the Regulations or the ratio in Kulwant Singh Gill's case (1991 Suppl.(1)SCC 504), where the employee had slept over the matter and had not chosen to challenge it within a reasonable period of time. It may also be 2 [(2013(3) ALT 711(F.B)] 6 RRN,J WP No.5871 of 2016 noticed that in service matters, the Courts have applied the rule of delay with greater rigor."
11. In view of above facts and circumstances and also in view of the settled principle of law, there are no merits in this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 21.10.2022 BDR