The imposition of major penalties, such as withholding increments with cumulative effect, requires a proper enquiry as per established legal principles.

ORDER:

This instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer:-

“……to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in I.D.No.26/2000, dt. 11.02.2005 on the file of the Hon’ble 1^st respondent, in not granting any relief to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently quash the same by granting increments and arrears to the petitioner and pass such other orders….”

2. In the present writ petition, the Award dated 11.02.2005 made in I.D No.26 of 2000 is called into question, wherein, the 1^st respondent- Labour Court, Guntur., with reference to Section 10-1(c) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, confirmed the penalty imposed by the 2^nd respondent in withholding the annual increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect without conducting an enquiry.

Brief case of the petitioner:-

3. The petitioner upon joining the service as Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1976, was promoted to Junior Assistant on 18.01.1992. When the petitioner was discharging his duties in the year 1986, charges were framed against him regarding Cash &Ticket irregularities, and Charge Sheet dated 24.02.1986 was issued.

4. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that, without conducting an enquiry, the 2^nd respondent had passed a final order dated 20.05.1986, whereby petitioner’s annual increment which falls next due be withheld for a period of six months, having the effect of postponing future increments.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 20.05.1986, before the appellate authority, and the same was rejected as Time barred. At last, finally the case landed in the 1^st respondent-Labour Court under Section 10-1(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the punishment against the petitioner was confirmed.

Brief case of the Respondent-Corporation:-

6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation, it is stated that the record was destroyed as case relates to old one and that the petitioner’s appeal before the appellate authority was rejected as it was time-barred and further contended that the 1^st respondent-Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record has confirmed the punishment inflicted against the petitioner. Thus, aggrieved by the award dated 11.02.2005 made in I.D No.26 of 2000, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

7. Heard Sri Y. Subba Rao, representing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation as well as learned Government Pleader.

Consideration of this Court:

8. Perused the material on record.

9. The moot question emanated in the instant writ petition is whether stoppage of increment with cumulative effect without conducting an enquiry against the petitioner is legally sustainable or not ?

10. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Conductor in the 2^nd respondent corporation. Therefore, the petitioner is governed by the service, conduct and CC&A conditions, as envisaged under the APSRTC Regulations i.e. APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967. Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) reads as under :-

“Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations specifies the various penalties that may be imposed upon an employee by the disciplinary authority. Regulations 12 (2) of the said Regulations further provides that no order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in terms (VII). (VIII) and (X) of clause (1) of Regulation 8 shall be passed except after an enquiry is held in the manner prescribed under the Regulations. Thus, according to CC&A Regulations major penalties can be imposed only after conducting an enquiry as provided under the Regulations.”

11.