P.MALLESHWAR RAO Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was involved in the offence of transportation of 40 bottles of Bhutan Rum of 750ML each. On 5/12/1994 the petitioner was attending the duty as a driver of the bus bearing registration No.AP 9 Z 6538 for the service from Rayachoti to Madras. On the intervening night of 05/6/12/1994, a check was conducted in the bus and found the Bhutan Rum bottles. For which, a case against the petitioner was registered under Sec. 34(a) of the A.P. Excise and Prohibition Act and was kept in custody from 6/12/1994 to 7/12/1994. A criminal case in Cr. No.33/94-95 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Tirupati, was registered and after conducting regular trial in C.C.No.166 of 2000, the petitioner was found not guilty for the said offence. The learned counsel further submits that on the basis of the alleged misconduct, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 4/1/1995, charges were framed and an enquiry was conducted. In spite of the petitioner denying the charges vide his explanation dtd. 24/1/1995, the disciplinary authority without any detailed enquiry imposed the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, but in vain. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12625 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the Regional Manager to consider the review petition of the petitioner within a period of three months. The reviewing authority, vide proceedings dtd. 7/11/1997, directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh driver and the period from the date of removal till the date of reporting duty of reinstatement was directed to be treated as 'not on duty'. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed I.D. before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has held that the reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh driver was not justified and set aside the order of punishment to that effect. However, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without monetary benefits from the date of removal till the date of publishing the award. The Labour Court, however, directed a major punishment to withhold of annual increments for three years with a cumulative effect.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that awarding major punishment in withholding of annual increments for three years with cumulative effect is a major punishment that could not have been imposed without conducting a detailed enquiry as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kulwanth Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab,1990 SCR, SUPL. (1) 426. and prayed for setting aside the award to the extent of withholding annual increment and prayed for consequential relief of directing the respondents to release the monitory benefits to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was retired from service long back.

(3.) The learned counsel for the first respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner was appointed on a casual basis in the year 1985 and was regularized with effect from 21/3/1986. It is submitted that the petitioner's service record was also not satisfactory and his annual increments were deferred for a period of one year besides imposing fines on number of times. Though the petitioner was charged for the misconduct, the Labour Court considered the case of the petitioner in a lenient view and awarded punishment withholding of annual increments for three years with cumulative effect. Hence, the learned standing counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the writ petition with costs.