K.V.Naidu,Waltair,Visakhapatnam ... vs The Apsrtc., Rep.By Its Vc Md., 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 10014 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K.V.Naidu,Waltair,Visakhapatnam ... vs The Apsrtc., Rep.By Its Vc Md., 3 Others on 7 November, 2024

 APHC010652362011
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                        [3457]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                      WRIT PETITION NO: 18145/2011

Between:

K.v.naidu,waltair,visakhapatnam District                      ...PETITIONER

                                    AND

The Apsrtc Rep By Its Vc Md 3 Others and Others          ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S M SUBHAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC )

The Court made the following:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment imposed by the respondent

imposing deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with

cumulative effect vide Proc No.Steno\62(42)\1997, Paderu, dated 18.09.1997.

The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year, 1993 faced the

allegations of cash and ticket irregularity. A departmental enquiry was

conducted and the petitioner was found liable for the said charges and accordingly the punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of two

years with cumulative effect was imposed on 18.09.1997.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no enquiry was conducted

before imposing the punishment of withholding of annual increments with

cumulative effect.

3. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was imposed the

said punishment of deferment of annual increments with cumulative effect,

without conducting any enquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relies upon

the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State

of Punjab1, State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Pran Nath Anand

and Another2 and Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others3, whereby

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of stoppage of increments

with cumulative effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that

withholding of increments with cumulative effect would definitely be a major

punishment; as such before such punishment, the respondents ought to have

conducted the enquiry. No such enquiry seems to have been conducted by the

respondents.

1990 Law Suit (SC) 508

1995 Supp (4) SCC 434

1995 Supp. (4) SCC 433

5. The respondents shall extend the mandatory benefits to which the

petitioner is entitled for. It is also made the petitioner would not be entitled for

any.

6. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside, the writ petition is

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Date: 07.11.2024 RMD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION No.18145 of 2011 Date: 07.11.2024

RMD