Telangana High Court
The Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs V. Narayana on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Writ Appeal No.1510 of 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for the appellants Corporation and Mr. G.Ravi
Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Respondent is working as a conductor in the
establishment of the appellants. On 28.04.1992, penalty of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was
imposed on the respondent by the appellants. In 2007,
respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18422
of 2007 assailing the legality and validity of the order of
penalty dated 28.04.1992. It was contended that though
the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative
effect is a major penalty, no enquiry was conducted and
without holding enquiry, impugned penalty was imposed.
Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in
Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab1 to contend that
there can be no imposition of major penalty without
conducting enquiry.
3. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 17.09.2018,
held that the case of the respondent is squarely covered by
the decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill's
case (supra) and therefore, allowed the writ petition by
quashing the order dated 28.04.1992. This order of the
learned Single Judge has been questioned in appeal before
us.
4. On 19.11.2018, this Court had admitted the appeal
and suspended the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there
was delay of 15 years by the respondent in approaching the
Court. When there is such an inordinate delay, learned
Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ
petition. According to him, when there is such a delay, the
decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh
1991 Supp (1) SCC 504
Gill's case (supra) would not apply automatically. This
aspect was gone into by a Full Bench of this Court in
P.V.Narayana v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation, Hyderabad2.
6. The controversy in question was summed up in our
order dated 11.07.2022 in the following manner:
"Respondent as the writ petitioner had challenged
the order of penalty dated 28-04-1992 passed by the
appellants. As per the order of penalty, pay of the
respondent was reduced by two incremental stages for a
period of two years having effect on his future
increments.
The order of penalty was challenged by the
respondent before this Court after fifteen years.
Learned Single Judge, relying upon a decision of the
Supreme Co0urt in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of
Punjab (1991 Supp (1) SCC 504), held that punishment
of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a
major punishment, which cannot be imposed without
conducting enquiry.
On appeal, this Court vide order
dated 19.11.2018 observed that learned Single Judge
did not consider the question of delay on the part of the
respondent.
As already noticed above, there was delay of
fifteen years in filing the related writ petition.
2013 SCC Online AP 729
Question for consideration is whether the
decision in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab
(supra) would automatically apply to a case based on
similar facts notwithstanding inordinate delay?
Learned counsel for the appellants has placed
before us a Full Bench decision of this Court in
P.V.Narayana V. Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation, Hyderabad (2013 SCC Online
AP 729), which has been followed by a Division Bench
of this Court in Order dated 13.12.2021, in
W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for
some more time to present contrary views.
On his request, list on 27.07.2022."
7. Though on the previous occasion learned counsel for
the respondent was granted time to find out contrary
views, he fairly submits today that he could not find any
decision contrary to the decision of the Full Bench in
P.V.Narayana's case (supra).
8. Be that as it may, we are of the view that while delay
on the part of the respondent in approaching the Court is a
fact the delay being 15 years, it is also a fact that the writ
petition filed by the respondent in the year 2007 could be
finally decided after 11 long years in the year 2018. For
whatever reason, proceedings before this Court had also
taken substantial length of time to conclude. Thereafter
the present appeal is in its fourth year. Therefore, in our
view, a balance has to struck. While certainly the
respondent cannot claim any benefit for his own delay, he
should also not be denied the benefit for delayed
adjudication of his case.
9. To strike a balance, we are of the view that the
penalty imposed on the respondent i.e., reduction of two
incremental stages for a period of two years having effect
on his future increments should be restricted till the time
respondent filed the writ petition before this Court. We
have been informed that the writ petition was filed by the
respondent in August, 2007.
10. Therefore and in the light of the above, post
31.08.2007, decision of the learned Single Judge will have
its effect. In other words, on and from 31.08.2007 the
penalty imposed on the respondent vide the order dated
28.04.1992 would cease to have its effect.
11. This disposes of the writ appeal.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
27.07.2022
vs
