Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs P.L.Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 4260 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4260 Tel
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2021

Telangana High Court

Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs P.L.Rao on 13 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                       AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                    WRIT APPEAL No.75 of 2019

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

13.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.12377 of 2016 by the learned

Single Judge.      The learned Single Judge allowed the writ

petition solely based upon order dated 05.09.2005 passed in

W.P.No.18299 of 2005.

     The facts of the case reveal that a detailed departmental

enquiry was held against the respondent/employee and a

punishment order was passed on 13.07.1999 and after 17

years a writ petition was preferred in the year 2016

challenging the order of punishment on the ground that in

some identical case as a second show cause notice was not

given, the punishment order was set aside and it deserves to

be set aside in the present case also. Reliance was placed

upon a judgment delivered in W.P.No.18299 of 2005 dated

05.09.2005. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is

reproduced as under:

"Today, when the matter is called, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18299 of 2005 dated 5.9.2005 and a copy of the same is placed on record. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"Strictly speaking, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter needs to be remanded. However, having regard to the

fact that nearly six years have elapsed, this Court does not find it proper, to subject the petitioner to another set of proceedings. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, the punishment of stoppage of increment shall be treated, as the one without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit, upto the date of this order, on account of the modification of the punishment".

2. Following the above referred order and for the reasons recorded therein, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the above mentioned order dated 5.9.2005 in W.P.No.18299 of 2005. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs."

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has

argued before this Court that there was no necessity for

issuing any second show cause notice. The employee has

approached the High Court after 17 years and in a

mechanical manner the learned Single Judge has allowed the

writ petition. He has also brought to the notice of this Court

that the order dated 05.09.2005, which was the basis for

allowing the writ petition, itself was set aside by a coordinate

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1756 of 2018 decided on

04.02.2019.

This Court has carefully gone through the order passed

by the coordinate Bench. Paragraphs 3 to 8 read as under:

"3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the appellants submits that pursuant to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/writ petitioner, enquiry was conducted and that the first appellant after following due procedure and by taking a lenient view, set aside the order of removal and while ordering reinstatement of the respondent into service, imposed on him the punishment of reduction of two (2) incremental stages with permanent effect and accordingly, issued the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition. He also submits that in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. Karunakaran (AIR 1993 SC 1074), no notice is required to

be issued before imposing major penalty but the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the order dated 05.09.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.18299 of 2005, passed the order under appeal modifying the order impugned in the Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that the respondent was not issued any notice before imposing on him major penalty although the Regulations of TSRTC provide for issuance of a show cause notice to the delinquent before imposing major penalty.

5. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that initially, the third appellant passed the order of removal against the respondent/writ petitioner. However, challenging the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal, which in turn was rejected by the second appellant. Thereafter, the respondent filed a review petition before the first appellant, who in turn, took a lenient view by ordering his reinstatement into service while setting aside the order of removal but by imposing on him the punishment of reduction of pay by two (2) incremental stages with permanent effect.

6. The Honourable Supreme Court in Karunakaran's case (1 supra) held, no prior show cause notice is necessary prior to imposing major penalty, only inquiry report is to be served on delinquent officer for offering his explanation. A perusal of writ affidavit goes to show that no such plea that writ petitioner was not issued with notice before imposing penalty was raised and in the absence of same, relief could not have been granted. In view of the same, the aforementioned contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be accepted.

7. In view of law laid down by Apex Court in Karunakaran's case, grant of relief by learned Single Judge by placing reliance on order in W.P.No.18299 of 2005 is erroneous.