Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs V. Veeraswamy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5151 Tel

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                  AND

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                 WRIT APPEAL No.440 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

01.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing

W.P.No.3545 of 2007.

3. The related writ petition was filed by the

respondent assailing the legality and validity of the order

dated 27.06.2005 passed by the 3rd appellant.

4. It may be mentioned that respondent was a

Conductor in the establishment of the 3rd appellant. A charge

sheet dated 21.02.2004 was issued against the respondent

alleging that while he was discharging his duties on

07.02.2004, he had indulged in cash and ticket irregularities, 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.440 of 2019

which was a misconduct. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry

was conducted, following which respondent was removed from

service vide order dated 06.08.2004.

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 3rd

appellant. By the order dated 27.06.2005, 3rd appellant set

aside the order of removal of the respondent. However,

penalty of denial of one year annual increment with

cumulative effect was passed.

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 a

punishment of reduction of pay by one increment for a period

of one year without cumulative effect instead of making the

same with cumulative effect. Accordingly, learned Single

Judge modified the punishment clarifying that the same 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.440 of 2019

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 however

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.440 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.440 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