logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 194 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 930 of 2014
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. HARINATH
Parties : G.S. Rao Versus The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. By Its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Vanam Vishwanatham, Advocate. For the Respondents: P. Durga Prasad, SC for APSRTC, Danda Radhika (SC FOR APSRTC).
Date of Judgment : 02-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toIssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the the action of 3rd respondent in issuing final order No. 02/95(21)/2012-CRL, dt. 28-4-2012 confirmed by the Dy.CTM, Ongole, in proceedings No. 19(143)/12-DCTM, dt. 10-5-2012, and the proceedings of 2nd respondent in No.PA/675(40)/2012-RM(O), dt. 18-3-2013 as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and unwarranted and to pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2013(WPMP 207957 OF 2013

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 1015 OF 2014

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the final order No. 02/95(21)/2012-CRL, dt. 28.4.2012 issued by 3rd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 8926 OF 2014

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased)

1. The petitioner is challenging the punishment imposed on him in respect of the alleged cash and ticket irregularity.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge sheet dated 07.02.2012 was issued to the petitioner alleging misappropriation of tickets worth Rs.796/-. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.02.2012. As the authorities were not satisfied with the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 22.02.2012 by holding the charges as proved. Thereafter, the petitioner has issued a show cause notice dated 07.04.2012 and he submitted his reply and explanation on 20.04.2012. subsequently, final orders dated 28.04.2012 were passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the annual increment of the petitioner was postponed for a period of one year with effect on future increment.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Review before the review authority; however, both the appeal and review were rejected.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and that the punishment was imposed after considering all the materials on available.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation. Perused the material on record.

6. As seen from the final order dated 28.04.2012, it is evident that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, referred to the evidence available on record and has concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and that the petitioner would have to be imposed the punishment.

7. The punishment of withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment and the final order dated 28.04.2012 would not indicate the participation of the petitioner in the detailed inquiry. The enquiry report also is not submitted by the respondent authorities. Admittedly and evidently the respondents have considered only the explanation of the petitioner for passing the order of punishment dated 28.04.2012. The major punishment could not have been imposed without conducting a proper inquiry and extending the petitioner an opportunity of participating in the inquiry.

8. On these grounds, this Court is inclined to modify the punishment dated 28.04.2012 by modifying it as holding of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefits for the past period, and that the increment shall be considered only for the future and for the remainder of the petitioner's term with the respondent corporation.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal