E. Balaraju, Khammam Dist. v. The Apsrtc, Rep. By Its R.M, Khammam Region And 2 Others

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.25592 OF 2006

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 25.06.2006 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the same. Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1984 and he was working as such. While so, he had indulged in cash and ticket irregularities on 13.08.2005, for which a charge sheet was issued to him on 23.8.2005. After conducting enquiry and on the basis of report of the enquiry officer, the 3rd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 6.4.2006. Thereafter, he filed review application before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent vide order dated 25.6.2006 while setting aside the removal order,

reinstated the petitioner into service, imposing the punishment of reduction pay by two incremental stages and treating the suspension period as 'not on duty'. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent while setting aside the order of removal, reinstated the petitioner into service, ought not to have imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages and treated the suspension period as 'not on duty'. He further contended that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.18299 of 2005 and this Court vide order dated 5.9.2005 passed the following order:

"Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The first respondent followed a peculiar procedure, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated, against the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted, and on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the first respondent has, straight away, inflicted the punishment of stoppage of annual increment, for two years, with cumulative effect. However, he has chosen to issue a show cause notice, in relation to the period of suspension. On considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent treated the period of suspension, as not on duty. The appeal and review filed by the petitioner were rejected. Therefore, it clearly emerges that the punishment of stoppage of increment, with cumulative effect, was inflicted on the petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice, after the

departmental enquiry was conducted. When the first respondent himself recognized the necessity to issue a show cause notice, as to how the period of suspension must be treated, as not on duty, he ought to have followed the same procedure before inflicting the punishment of stoppage of increment, that too, with cumulative effect. Strictly speaking, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter needs to be remanded. However, having regard to the fact that nearly six years have elapsed, this Court does not find it proper, to subject the petitioner to another set of proceedings. Taking the totality of the circumstances, into account, the punishment of stoppage of increment shall be treated, as the one without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit, upto the date of this order, on account of the modification of the punishment." Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issue raised in this writ petition is also squarely covered by the above said judgment.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation contended that for the proven misconduct, punishment was imposed, and there was no illegality in the order passed by the 1st respondent. However, the learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.18299 of 2005, dated 5.9.2005. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties and the judgment referred to supra, is of

the view that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.18299 of 2005, dated 5.9.2005, and therefore, this writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the above judgment.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent to that of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages without cumulative effect. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 29th October, 2018 rkk