Kata Govinda Raju, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2377 AP

                                1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

              WRIT PETITION No.9228 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the

respondents in not releasing the increments due to the

petitioner from the year 2014 on the ground that an ACB case

is pending against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.S.N.Sudhakar

appears and argues that the ACB case was registered against

the petitioner in December, 2013. The petitioner was initially

suspended and later reinstated into service. However, the

criminal case numbered as C.C.No.38 of 2017 is still pending

before the competent court and is not disposed of as on date.

Due to the pendency of this case from 2014 onwards the

increments, which are due to the petitioners, have not been

paid. Relying upon orders passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in W.P.Nos.6617 of 2004, 15504 of 2009, 21972 of 2020

and of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4553 of 2021,

learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the denial of the

increment is totally wrong and the petitioner should be paid

his increments which are lawfully due to him. He points out

that even in the counter affidavit filed the only ground on which

it is urged that the increments cannot be paid because of the

pendency of the ACB case. The petitioner relied upon FR-24,

which is vehemently denied by the respondent, but the learned

counsel for the petitioner points out that in the very first

Division Bench judgment that he relies upon viz., W.P.No.6617

of 2004 itself this very Rule FR-24 fell for consideration and the

Division Bench held that withholding of increment is in the

nature of a penalty and unless the due procedure and the rules

are followed the same cannot be imposed. He argues that the

same was followed in the next judgment also which he has

relied upon. Therefore, he urges that an order should be

passed in favour of the petitioner.

Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar, learned standing counsel

argues in line with what is mentioned in his counter.

According to him FR-24 is applicable and the respondents have

a right to withhold the increments. It is his clear submission

that as the petitioner is accused of a crime by the ACB, he

should not be granted the order. It is his contention that the

suspension has also been removed and he is earning a salary.

If the petitioner is convicted, the learned standing counsel

submits that the petitioner may also face serious repercussion.

Therefore, he urges that this is not a case to grant an order at

this stage.

After hearing the submissions and considering the law,

this Court is of the opinion that as rightly pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioner FR-24 fell for consideration

in the Division Bench judgment i.e., W.P. No. 6617 of 2004.

The Division Bench clearly held that order of withholding

increment is an exception rather than the rule and that the

increment can only be withheld on proof of case, unsatisfactory

service or bad conduct. It is also mentioned that such an order

should state the period from which it is withheld and whether

the postponement shall have the effect of withdrawal,

postponing the future increments also. Ultimately, the learned

Judges concluded that an order holding the increment is in the

nature of a penalty and can only be issued if due process is

followed. The same is reiterated in the subsequent judgment

of the Bench and also of the learned Single Judge. This is

applicable to the present facts and nothing to the contrary was

pointed out by the respondents.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the

respondents in withholding the increments of the petitioner is

not correct and contrary to the settled law on the subject.

Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the

increments due to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:13.07.2021.

Ssv