B.K.Rao v. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Managing Director

B.K.Rao, s/o late Venkateshwar Rao, R/o 1-6-141/7/3B, Srividya Nagar, Street No.2, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. AND

#1. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Managing Director. 2 APSRTC Bus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District rep., by its Depot Manager. ..... PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS CERTIORARI, Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF punishment Proc.No.02/62(12)/DS/515/93-SRPT dt.02-04-1993 as illegal, unjust, in violation of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. impugned Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD The Court at the admission stage, made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24286 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a conductor in the respondent-Corporation. He was issued a charge memo on 30-03-1993 and after receiving the explanation of the petitioner, the final orders were passed on 02-04-1993 imposing the penalty of withholding of one incremental stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner questioned the order on the ground that though there is reduction of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect is a major penalty, the respondent passed the impugned order without conducting any enquiry as required under the rules. Therefore, the order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside.

#2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab1 wherein the Supreme Court held that since the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major punishment, the order cannot be sustained without an enquiry. The petitioner therefore seeks to declare that the order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside.

#3. The petitioner after receiving the adverse orders slept over the matter for a period of 11 years. There are latches on his part in asserting his right regarding this issue. Though the impugned order is liable to be set aside, on account of long lapse of time in filing the writ petition and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill (1 supra), I am of the view that it would be appropriate if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is treated as reduction of one annual increment for two years without cumulative effect. The petitioner is not entitled for the difference of the amount, if any, by virtue of this order for the period from the date of the impugned order till the date of this order. But, he is entitled to get increments on notional calculation from the date of this order to which he is entitled, as he had not been imposed penalty of reduction of one annual increment for two years without cumulative effect.

#4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. __________________ December 27, 2004 Kvr To

#1. The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

#3. 2 C.D copies.