Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R.A. Singh, vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., on 28 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No. 28776 OF 2012
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated
07.04.2004, the appellate authority order dated 09.06.2004,
and the revisional authority order dated 21.04.2005.
2. The petitioner has been working as a driver with the
respondents' Corporation since 1990. The petitioner caused a
fatal accident while on duty and a departmental enquiry was
conducted and the disciplinary authority imposed the
punishment of deferment of two annual increments with
cumulative effect.
3. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri K. Viswanatham, the learned standing counsel for the
respondents' Corporation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was acquitted, vide judgment, dt.03.11.2005, in
C.C. No.209 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur where the petitioner was
tried for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. The learned
counsel further submits that without affording an opportunity
to the petitioner during the enquiry, the disciplinary authority
imposed the punishment, vide proceedings No.01/2(07)/
2003-ATK(K), dt.07.04.2004. Thereafter the petitioner filed
appeal and the review before the revisional authority for
reconsidering the punishment imposed keeping in view the
acquittal in C.C., but in vain.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
imposing punishment of withholding the increment with
cumulative effect is a major punishment and the same ought
not to have been ordered without affording any opportunity to
the petitioner and without conducting proper enquiry. The
learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab1 and the judgment of
the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the
State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana rendered in W.P.
No.22377 of 2001. Following the judgment of the Apex Court
in Kulwant Singh Gill's case referred to supra, the erstwhile
High Court allowed the writ petition, wherein the deferment of
1991 Supp (1) SCC 504
annual increment with cumulative effect was under
challenge.
6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court finds that enquiry was not conducted
following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the
punishment imposed on the petitioner is set aside and the
order dt.07.04.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority is
modified as withholding of two annual increments of the
petitioner without cumulative effect.
7. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed without costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE HARINATH. N
Dt.28.12.2023
BV
