JUDGMENT (Per B. Prakash Rao, J.)

Heard Sri V.T.M Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation and Sri G. Ravi Mohan, and other learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The short interesting question, which commonly arises for consideration in these batch of cases, is as to whether, on the facts and circumstances, any distinction can be drawn in between in the cases of two punishments of one withholding increments with and another without cumulative effect awarded? And whether such cases would fall within the mischief of major penalty calling for a regular enquiry as contemplated by the Regulations framed by the appellant Corporation herein?

3. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondents are the employees working with the appellant-Corporation, who initiated the disciplinary enquiry on certain allegations and ultimately on issuance of show-cause notice, the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents in the writ petitions filed by them challenging the punishment that the action of the appellant-Corporation would virtually amount to major penalty, which requires a regular enquiry and without which, no such punishment can be meted out to them, which was accepted by the learned single Judge. Hence, these appeals by the Management/Corporation.

5. The relevant provisions, since there is no dispute on facts, which require for considering the aforesaid questions, are Rule 8 (iv), Rule 8 (vii), Rules 12 and 16 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct of Meetings) Regulations, 1959 (for brevity the Regulations). These Rules read as follows:

8. (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon an employee namely:

(iv) withholding of increments

(vii) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time scale, whether in the same class of service or in another class, or to a lower stage in a time scale;

Rule 12. Procedure for imposing penalties:

(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in items (i) to (vi) of clause (1) of Regulation 8 shall be passed except after -

(a) the employee concerned is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and is given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; and

(b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the authority imposing the penalty.

The record of proceeding in such cases shall include a copy of the intimation to the employee of the proposal to take action against him, a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him, his representation, if any, the findings arrived at on the allegation with reasons therefor and the orders passed on the case by the authority competent to impose the penalty.

(2) No order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in items (vii), (viii) and (ix) of clause (1) of Regulation 8 shall be passed except after an enquiry is held as far as may be in the manner hereinafter provided.

(3) The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges and communicated to the employee charged together with statement of the allegations of a copy of the report on which each charge is based, and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case.

(4) The employee shall be required within such time as may be considered by the enquiring authority reasonably adequate in the circumstances of the case (ordinarily not less than seven clear days from the date he receives the charge-sheet) to put in a written statement of his defence.

(5) The employee charged shall, if he so desires, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official reco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document