P. Janardhan S/O Late Papaiah vs Apsrtc., Rep By Managing ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 843 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI


                 WRIT APPEAL Nos.427 & 1011 of 2009

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



         Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid

cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common

order.

         The facts of W.A.No.427 of 2009 are reproduced as under:

         W.A.No.427 of 2009 is arising out of order dated 03.04.2008

passed in W.P.No.7106 of 2008.

         The facts of the case reveal that the respondent-workman was

appointed as Driver on 10.10.1991. He was regularized on

13.11.1992 and on account of an accident, he was placed under

suspension on 22.04.1999. Finally, after holding a departmental

enquiry, he was removed from service on 13.08.1999. An appeal was

preferred by him and the punishment of removal was converted into

reduction of pay by 2 incremental stages for a period of 2 years from

the date of reinstatement. He thereafter preferred a review petition

and the same was dismissed. In those circumstances, he came up

before this Court.

It was argued before the learned Single Judge that the

respondent-writ petitioner was not responsible for the accident as a

lorry, which was coming from the opposite direction, hit the bus and it

was the lorry driver, who was negligent in the matter. The fact

remains that the punishment of removal was set aside and the

punishment was reduced for a period of 2 years by 2 incremental

stages that too with cumulative effect. The learned Single Judge has

arrived at a conclusion that the punishment amounts to double

jeopardy, as reduction of two incremental stages would bring down

the salary of the writ petitioner to certain level and the period

mentioned is 2 years and therefore, there was no necessity of

mentioning the fact that the punishment is with cumulative effect.

We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge, as the period of reduction of salary by 2 incremental stages

was categorically mentioned in the punishment order as 2 years and

therefore, there appears to be no justification in imposing a further

rider of cumulative effect in the punishment order. This Court does

not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge. It is made clear that the writ petitioner shall not be

entitled for back wages. However, he shall be entitled for continuity of

service for all purposes.

Resultantly, W.A.No.427 of 2009 is dismissed and W.A.No.1011

of 2009 is disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 22.02.2022 ES