P.Siva Subrahmanayam, Srikalahasthi, ... vs The Apsrtc, Rep By Its Managing ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8403 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P.Siva Subrahmanayam, Srikalahasthi, ... vs The Apsrtc, Rep By Its Managing ... on 12 September, 2024

APHC010181232005
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI
                                                          [3457]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

         THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
             TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 15852/2005

BETWEEN:
P.SIVA SUBRAHMANAYAM, SRIKALAHASTHI, ...PETITIONER
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

                                   AND

THE APSRTC REP BY ITS MANAGING   ...RESPONDENT(S)

DIRECTOR HYD 2 OTHERS AND OTHERS

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

1. V JAGAPATHI

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):

1. W V S RAJESWARI

The Court made the following Order:

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

charged with the offence of consuming alcohol on the premises of

the respondent depot at Tirupati while the prohibition was in force in

the state at that point of time. The petitioner was also tried under

Section 8(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act by the

concerned excise police and was imposed a fine of Rs.500/- on

03.10.1996. After conducting an enquiry, the respondents imposed HN, J

the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of two years

with cumulative effect. However, on appeal, the appellate authority

modified the punishment to deferment of increment for a period of

one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenges the said

punishment and seeks grant of annual increments.

2. The petitioner submits that he was acquitted in STC No.882

of 1996 on 07.10.1999. As such, the said punishment ought not to

have been imposed. The petitioner further submits that the Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise in Chittoor categorically

held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the petitioner

was in an intoxicated condition, as none of the medical officers

were examined and no certificate was issued by doctors certifying

that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. In view of the

same, the petitioner challenges the punishment imposed.

3. Perused the judgment passed in STC.No.882 of 1996, it is

evident that the prosecution did not examine any medical officer nor

marked any certificates issued by the medical officer and there was

no evidence to establish the petitioner was guilty of consuming

alcohol on the premises of the respondent corporation.

4. Be that as it may, the scope of the disciplinary proceedings

conducted by the respondents, have a different sweep and scope, HN, J

when compared to those of a criminal trial. However, considering

the judgment passed by the excise Court, this Court is inclined to

modify the impugned punishment dated 18.05.2005 to the extent of

withholding the annual increment for a period of one year without

cumulative effect on further increments.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with above

directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

stand closed.

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 12.09.2024 NKA HN, J

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION No.15852 of 2005 Date: 12.09.2024

NKA