logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 APHC 1694 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 17152 of 2019
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Parties : A.P. Nagesh Versus The APSRTC, Rep By Its Managing Director, Pnbs, Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S.M. Subhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Aravala Rama Rao(SC for APSRTC KKAC)
Date of Judgment : 25-11-2025
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

1. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/APSRTC.

2. Sri S.M.Subhan would submit that the writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings No.PA/19(77)/2017-R.M.K.Kurnool, dated 26.10.2018 and to set aside the same.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner working as Conductor. He was appointed in the year 2010. While so, on 05.11.2016, RTC Officials conducted checking of the bus. They alleged irregularities in cash and ticketing. Therefore, enquiry was conducted and basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, he was removed from service. He preferred appeal to the Regional Manager, Kurnool. The Regional Manager, Kurnool, converted the punishment of removal into deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as no duty. The petitioner filed revision. It was rejected by the concerned authorities. Hence, he filed the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the similar circumstances, this Court vide order dated 25.07.2023, passed in W.P.No.18450 of 2023 passed order modifying the punishment to deferment of two annual increments without cumulative effect. Therefore, this writ petition may also be disposed of on similar lines.

5. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/APSRTC would submit that the writ petition may be disposed of on similar lines, as per the order of this Court mentioned above.

6. Upon considering the above facts and circumstances and on perusal of the above order passed by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the facts and circumstances in both the cases are similar, this writ petition also can also be disposed of on similar lines, as ordered in the above writ petition. Hence, the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect imposed on the writ petitioner vide order dated 26.10.2018 is modified to as deferment of two annual increments without cumulative effect, without modifying the other portion of the punishment that the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefits for the period of suspension.

7. The respondent authorities shall comply with this order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal