S. Madhusudana Rao vs The A.P. Eastren Power ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7761 AP

        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.26919 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not releasing Annual Grade Increments which fall on due from 2010 to till date to the petitioner on mere pendency of Criminal Case in C.C.No.27 of 2015 and C.C.No.4 of 2020 and departmental Charge Sheet dated 20.07.2020 (all the Charges are related to same incident) without there being any order of punishment for withholding/postponing increments as illegal arbitrary unreasonable discriminatory and in violation of Fundamental Rule 24 and Regulation 32 of A.P.S.E.B as adopted by the A.P.E.P.D.C.L consequently direct the respondents herein to release the annual grade increments which fall on due from the year 2010 to till date immediately in terms of similar orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.5217 of 2019, dated 18.04.2019 and W.P.No.22742 of 2021 dated 01.07.2022 and pass such other orders...."

2. Heard Mr. Kocherla Kota Ramalingeswara Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioner.

3. Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. Metta

Chandrasekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents. This Court already instructed to represent the

matters by concerned Standing Counsels only, but not through

proxy representations and this issue is also informed to the

learned Advocate General across the bench. Inspite of the same,

learned Standing Counsel again repeating in representing the

matters through proxy mode, which caused great inconvenience to

the Court to proceed with the matters. Further learned counsel

sought adjournments. Under these circumstances this Court

decided to dispose of the matter in terms of earlier orders passed

by this Court in similar circumstances.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that ACB

case was registered against the petitioner on 23.03.2013 in

Cr.No.03/RCT-ACB/VZM/2013. The petitioner was initially

suspended and later reinstate into service. However, the Criminal

Case numbered as C.C.No.4 of 2020 is still pending before the

competent court and is not disposed of as on date. Due to

pendency of this case from 2013 onwards the increments, which

are due to the petitioner has 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

argued that the denial of the increments which are lawfully due to

him. He further contended that even in the contention of the

respondents that 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 would contend that in the very first Division Bench

Judgment that he relies upon viz., W.P.No.6617 of 2004 itself his

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 further argued 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.

5. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner 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.

6. 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, within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

___________________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date: 12.10.2022

KK

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.26919 OF 2022

Date: 12.10.2022

KK