Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.V.Naidu, Visakhapatnam District. vs The Apsrtc, Hyderabad 3 Others on 7 November, 2024
APHC010116912011
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: 18130/2011
Between:
K.v.naidu, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER
AND
The Apsrtc Hyderabad 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 one year
with cumulative effect vide Proc No.Steno\62(56)\95, Paderu, dated
06.10.1999. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year, 1993
he faced the allegations of cash and ticket irregularity. A departmental enquiry
was initiated and the petitioner was held liable for the said charges and
accordingly the punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of
one year with cumulative effect was imposed on 06.10.1999.
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 Another 2 and Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others 3 , 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
6. The respondents shall extend the mandatory benefits to which the
petitioner is entitled for.
7. 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.18130 of 2011
Date: 07.11.2024
RMD
