Telangana High Court
Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs T.Krishna on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.436 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
30.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing
W.P.No.26057 of 2007.
3. The related writ petition was filed by the
respondent assailing the legality and validity of the order
dated 15.06.2005 passed by the 2nd appellant.
4. It may be mentioned that respondent was
appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the 2nd
appellant in the year 1989. A charge sheet dated 21.02.2004
was issued against the respondent alleging that he was
unauthorizedly absent from duty with effect from 30.12.2003
2 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.436 of 2019
which was a misconduct. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry
was conducted, following which respondent was removed from
service vide the order dated 31.05.2004.
5. Departmental appeal filed by the respondent
against the order of penalty was dismissed. This was followed
by a revision petition filed by the respondent before the 2nd
appellant. By the order dated 15.06.2005, 2nd appellant set
aside the order of removal of the respondent. However,
penalty of denial of two years annual increment with
cumulative effect was imposed.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the related writ petition
came to be filed. By the order under appeal, learned Single
Judge considered the rival submissions whereafter a view was
taken that the revisional authority ought to have imposed the
punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for
a period of two years without cumulative effect instead of
making the same with cumulative effect. Accordingly, learned
Single Judge modified the punishment clarifying that the
3 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.436 of 2019
same would be without any monetary benefit. It is this order
which is under impugnment in the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
no reasons were assigned by the learned Single Judge for
modification of the penalty. The revisional authority had duly
considered all the relevant factors and thereafter had imposed
the punishment which was proportionate to the gravity of the
offence. Learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering
with the same.
7.1. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
on due consideration, we find that an identical issue has been
dealt with by this bench in Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
decided on 01.09.2022. It has been held as follows:
"11. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find
that the order dated 17.05.1997 is not a speaking order.
Without assigning any reasons, disciplinary authority imposed
the major penalty on the respondent. The appellate authority
4 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.436 of 2019
also merely rejected the appeal. While the disciplinary
authority was silent as regards holding of any enquiry, the
appellate authority on its own recorded that a detailed enquiry
was conducted by Sri Ganesh Prasad, Senior Traffic Inspector
of SRCL Depot, wherein the charges leveled against the
respondent were held proved. If this is the position, then the
disciplinary authority ought to have referred to and discussed
about the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, after
serving a copy of the same to the respondent and calling for
his representation.
12. From the above, it is evident that the due procedure
was not followed before imposing the major penalty on the
respondent. As a matter of fact, such imposition of penalty
without following the due process, would warrant setting aside
of the same in its entirety. However, as the respondent has not
questioned the modified punishment, we would not like to
enter into this aspect of the matter.
13. Nonetheless, having regard to the above, we feel that
learned Single Judge was justified in modifying the
punishment imposed on the respondent from one having
cumulative effect to that of 'without cumulative effect and
without monitory benefit'. Therefore, no interference is called
for.
5 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.436 of 2019
14. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs."
9. Following the aforesaid order, we decline to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
___________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 17.10.2022
KL
