Telangana High Court
Apsrtc Now Tsrtc, vs K. Aleemuddin on 20 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.255 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
25.10.2018 passed in W.P.No.28183 of 2007 by the learned
Single Judge.
The facts of the case reveal that the
respondent/employee before this Court was appointed as a
Conductor in 1987 and a surprise check took place on
28.02.2007. A charge sheet was issued on 05.04.2007 in
respect of cash and ticket irregularities. Enquiry officer was
appointed and the enquiry officer submitted a report on
21.07.2007 and thereafter, show cause notice was issued on
03.10.2007 inflicting the punishment of deferment of annual
increment for a period of one year and treating the period of
suspension as not on duty. The employee being aggrieved by
the aforesaid order came up before this Court by filing a writ
petition and prayed for quashing of the punishment order.
The deferment of annual increment was with cumulative
effect and the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 6 and 7
has held as under:
"6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
learned Counsel on either side, this Court is of the
considered view that the disciplinary authority ought not to
have imposed the punishment of deferment of annual
increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect.
Therefore, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met
if the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a
period of one year with cumulative effect is modified to that
of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year
without cumulative effect.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
modifying the punishment of deferment of annual
increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect,
imposed by the disciplinary authority on the petitioner, to
that of deferment of annual increment for a period of one
year without cumulative effect and without monetary
benefits. The order impugned is modified to the above
extent only. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous
petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."
Meaning thereby, the punishment was converted to that
of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year
without cumulative effect and without monetary benefits.
Learned counsel for the appellants/Corporation has
argued before this Court that no reasoning has been assigned
by the learned Single Judge and the employee was dealt with
great lenience. He has produced the service record of the
employee and the employee in respect of six disciplinary
proceedings was inflicted with a punishment of censure on
six occasions. In addition, there were 17 other disciplinary
proceedings in which there was a punishment of stoppage of
increment and in respect of another disciplinary proceeding
there was a punishment of removal from service, though it
was later on set aside. Meaning thereby, there were in all 24
disciplinary proceedings against the employee in question.
Learned counsel has vehemently argued before this Court
that there was no reason before the learned Single Judge to
modify the order of punishment specially when there was no
illegality in the departmental enquiry.
This Court keeping in view the totality and the
circumstances of the case, as no reasoning has been assigned
by the learned Single Judge for converting the punishment of
stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with
cumulative effect to that of non-cumulative effect is of the
opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge
deserves to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
20.12.2021
ES
