Telangana High Court
B.Yadagiri, vs The Joint Managing Director Hrd ... on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
W.A.No.1469 of 2002
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
05.07.2002
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11999 of
2002.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
appellant/writ petitioner was serving as an Upper Division Clerk in
the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board')
and as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ
petitioner, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted a representation
to the Chief Minister for taking action against some senior officers
on account of alleged corruption. The Board issued a show cause
notice to the appellant/writ petitioner on 03.10.1996 and the show
cause notice was in respect of certain T.A. bills submitted by the
appellant/writ petitioner with an allegation that he has not, in fact,
travelled on 28.05.1994. There were other charges also in the show
cause notice. However, there was no such charge of making a
complaint against senior officers. The appellant/writ petitioner did
submit a reply and also demanded a departmental enquiry in the
matter. However, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order
on 17.04.1997 inflicting the punishment of stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect. An appeal was also preferred in
the matter and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal
by passing an order on 18.06.2002. The appellant/writ petitioner
has thereafter preferred the writ petition and the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
The moot question before this Court is whether the major
punishment i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect
could have been inflicted upon the appellant/writ petitioner
without holding departmental enquiry or not (see Kulwant Singh
Gill vs. State of Punjab1).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, has held
that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major
punishment and therefore the same could not have been inflicted
upon the appellant/writ petitioner without holding a detailed
departmental enquiry. Otherwise also, in the present case, it was
the appellant/writ petitioner who demanded a detailed enquiry in
the matter and in spite of his request made to the Disciplinary
Authority, no enquiry has been held.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the orders
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority
as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserve to
be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The appellant/writ
petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits flowing out
of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
18.01.2022
JSU
1990 Law Suit (SC) 508
