Telangana High Court
Vigilance Security ... vs A.V.R.Kumar,Secbad on 29 November, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.83 of 2016
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough in
informing this Court that W.A.No.117 of 2016 arising out of
the common judgment has already been dismissed by this
Court on 11.03.2016.
The judgment passed in the aforesaid writ appeal reads
as under:-
"This appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation and its Depot Manager, Tandur Depot, Tandur,
Ranga Reddy District calling in question the correctness of the judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge in a batch of 4 writ petitions on
19.11.2015.
A very short question which engaged the attention of the Court is
as to whether stoppage of increment with cumulative effect can be
imposed by the Corporation without following the procedure prescribed
under the APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations or not?
The learned Single Judge, before exercising the discretion, has
noticed the principle set out on the subject by the Supreme Court in
"Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. Thangappan and another
[(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 322] and thereafter the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petitions in part directing that the punishment
orders imposed by the competent authority be treated as one of stoppage
of annual increments without cumulative effect. Learned Single Judge
has also tempered his discretion by denying to the petitioners any
monitory benefit arising therefrom.
In effect, the judgment of the learned single Judge would merely
remove the element of cascading effect which normally flows from the
"cumulative effect" that was attached to the order of punishment.
Illustratively put, if one annual grade increment is withheld with
cumulative effect, such an employee will loose the benefit of one annual
grade increment forever. Whereas, if one annual grade increment is
withheld for a period of one year without cumulative effect, the loss liable
to be suffered by the employee would get quantified by multiplying the
2
quantum of money the increment will fetch by '12'. In other words,
imposition of a punishment without cumulative effect would be
transitory in nature leaving the employee with an immediate monitory
loss. Whereas, if the same increment is withheld with cumulative effect,
the loss can never be recouped and it can travel beyond the retirement
and the terminal benefits payable to the employee also would be
impacted. Keeping these factors in mind, it has been held that imposition
of withholding increments with cumulative effect is liable to be treated as
'a major punishment' and consequently, the elaborate procedure
prescribed for imposition of major punishment will have to be followed.
Wherever, such prescribed procedure has not been followed, it is only
appropriate that such punishment cannot be allowed to take effect. That
is what has been done by the learned single Judge.
Hence, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the
discretion exercised by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ
appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
also stand closed."
In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the present writ
appeal deserves to be dismissed. The said judgment shall be
applicable mutatis mutandis to the present writ appeal also.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The
miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
___________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
29.11.2021
vs
