Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pvk Reddy vs The Regional Manager Apsrtc., 2 Others on 1 August, 2024
APHC010372612004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 24829/2004
Between:
PVK REDDY ...PETITIONER
AND
THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC 2 ...RESPONDENT(S)
OTHERS AND OTHERS
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P VINAYAKA SWAMY
The Court made the following:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.
2. The petitioner, while working as a Driver, caused a fatal
accident. While on duty, the Crime No.11 of 2000 was registered
against the petitioner under sections 338 and 304-A of IPC. The trial
was conducted and the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.44 of 2000
on 16.03.2002 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piler. As
the petitioner caused the accident and an enquiry was initiated against
the petitioner and basing on the enquiry report the disciplinary
authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. The
petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which, having
considered the issue in totality, modified the punishment to withholding
of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect.
The petitioner then filed a review before the revision authority, which
further modified the punishment with effect of withholding annual
increments for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The
imposition of the punishment of withholding annual increments with
cumulative effect is considered as a major punishment, as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of
Punjab1. Without conducting a proper enquiry and without giving the
petitioner an opportunity to defend his case, the imposition of such a
major punishment is uncalled for.
3. That apart, it is evident that the petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal case registered against him. As seen from the judgment
dated 16.03.2002, it is evident that the prosecution failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. None of the
witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Considering the
same, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused therein and
the petitioner herein. With these facts and circumstances, the
impugned proceedings in the writ petition are hereby set aside and the
1990 Law Suit (SC) 508
respondents are directed to compute the service benefits due payable
to the petitioner and disburse the same within a period of six (06)
weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, the writ
petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date: 01.08.2024
NKA
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.24829 of 2004
(Allowed)
Date: 01.08.2024
NKA
