APHC010185612007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. PENETI KRISHNAIAH, NELLORE DIST., S/O. VEERA RAGHAVAIAH CONDUCTOR, E.NO. 500209, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. W1/553, NAWABPET, KUSHUMA HARIJANAWADA, NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. THE A P ROAD TRANSPORT CORP LTD 2 OTHERS, REP. REGIONAL MANAGER, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, NELLORE Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd , 2nd & 1st Respondent i issuing the proceedings No. E3/1(21)/92/NLR.I dt.15 (286)/92-DVM (N)dt,. 27-11 1-2007 respectively as illegal, arbitrary violative of Natural Justice Principles besides violative of Art.14 & set aside all the above mentioned proceedings issued by the 3rd , 2nd & 1st respondents and direct the respondents to pay consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may under the circumstances of this case and to meet the ends of the justice. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24962/2007 PENETI KRISHNAIAH, NELLORE DIST., S/O. VEERA RAGHAVAIAH CONDUCTOR, E.NO. 500209, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. W1/553, NAWABPET, KUSHUMA HARIJANAWADA, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE A P ROAD TRANSPORT CORP LTD 2 OTHERS, REP. REGIONAL MANAGER, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, NELLORE, NELLORE THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, NELLORE-I DEPOT, NELLORE. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd , 2nd & 1st Respondent i issuing the proceedings No. E3/1(21)/92/NLR.I dt.15-9-1992 No. PA/20 11-1993 and No. St/675(12)/2006 -RM (NLR) dt. 29 2007 respectively as illegal, arbitrary violative of Natural Justice Principles besides violative of Art.14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside all the above mentioned proceedings issued by the 3rd , 2nd & 1st respondents and direct the respondents to pay consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case and to meet the ends of the justice. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PENETI KRISHNAIAH, NELLORE DIST., S/O. VEERA RAGHAVAIAH CONDUCTOR, E.NO. 500209, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. W1/553, NAWABPET, KUSHUMA HARIJANAWADA, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER THE A P ROAD TRANSPORT CORP LTD 2 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, NELLORE, NELLORE I DEPOT, NELLORE. ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd , 2nd & 1st Respondent in 1992 No. PA/20 RM (NLR) dt. 29- 2007 respectively as illegal, arbitrary violative of Natural Justice Principles 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside all the above mentioned proceedings issued by the 3rd , 2nd & 1st respondents and direct the respondents to pay consequential benefits and deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case and to meet the ends of the justice. RC,J W.P.No.24962 of 2007 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 32522 OF 2007 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 to fix an early date for final hearing of the matter and pass such other order or orders IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP 11819 OF 2010 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 fix an early date for hearing of the matter and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER Challenge laid in this Writ Petition is to the orders passed by respondent no.3 vide Proceedings Nos. E3/1(21)/92/NLR.1, dated 15.09.1992; by respondent no.2 vide PA/20(286)/92-DVM(N), dated 27.11.1993 and by respondent no.1 vide No.St/675(12)/2006-RM (NLR), dated 29.01.2007 being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice besides being violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts, in brief, that led to filing of this writ petition are that respondent no.3- Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nellore-I Depot issued charge sheet dated 24.08.1992 alleging that the petitioner, who was working as RC,J W.P.No.24962 of 2007 3 conductor, absented to duties from 18.04.1992 to 24.04.1992 and from 24.07.1992 to 16.08.1992, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, respondent no.3, without conducting any domestic enquiry and without giving show cause notice, simply basing on the charge sheet, the respondent no.3 issued final order vide proceedings no.E3/1(21)/92/NLR.I, dated 15.09.1992 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with an effect on the future increments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal and respondent no.2-Depot Manager, Nellore vide orders dated 27.11.1993 reduced the punishment to withholding of annual increment for a period of one year having an effect on future increments and the review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent no.1- Regional Manager, vide proceedings No.St/675(12)/ 2006-RM(NLR), dated 29.01.2007. The respondent no.3 without conducting any domestic enquiry and without issuing any show-cause notice issued final order imposing major penalty, which was confirmed by respondent nos.2 and 1, which is violative of principles of natural justice and various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing counsel for APSRTC. RC,J W.P.No.24962 of 2007 4 4. Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that deferment of increments with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment, shall not be imposed on employee, until the charges leveled against the employee are proved in an enquiry conducted as contemplated under CC & A Regulations. He would further contend that no regular enquiry was conducted and no show cause notice was issued before imposing major penalty of withholding of annual increment and therefore there is flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the proceedings issued by respondent nos.1 to 3 in imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel, would submit that having found that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice is not satisfactory, the preliminary authority imposed punishment of deferment of two annual increments having effect on future annual increments and the appellate authority having taken lenient view reduced the said punishment to deferement of one annual increment having effect on future increments. He would further contend that the respondent no.1-Regional Manager, having found that the punishment imposed is in proportion to the misconduct of the petitioner of being absent RC,J W.P.No.24962 of 2007 5 from duties without prior intimation and permission of the immediate superior, dismissed the review. He would further contend that there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner and the orders passed by the Divisional as well as Regional Manager do not require any interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is the settled principle of law that if a person does not specifically plead a violation of the principles of natural justice and show how they were prejudiced by it, the doctrine of waiver can apply, meaning they may be deemed to have voluntarily relinquished their right to that claim. 8. The petitioner alleges violation of principles of natural justice stating that without conducting any regular enquiry and without issuing any show cause notice, a major punishment of deferment of increments was imposed on him. The petitioner did not choose to file the explanation submitted by him, grounds of appeal so also the review petition, so as to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had taken the plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, an adverse inference can safely be drawn that the RC,J W.P.No.24962 of 2007 6 petitioner did not plead violation of principles of natural justice earlier and that’s the reason for non-submission of those documents. 9. The order passed by the Divisional Manager shows that the petitioner offered explanation for his absence during the period mentioned in the charge sheet stating that he was suffering from ill-health and hence he could not attend the duties and even though the petitioner took a specific stance that the Medical Officer, RTC Dispensary referred him to T.B.Hospital wherein it was diagnosed that he was suffering from anemic problem, he did not produce any sick certificate of either RTC dispensary or the certificate of T.B.Hospital. Moreover, the order passed by respondent no.1-Regional Manager shows that the petitioner pleaded innocence for his absence. 10. Be that as it may, it is evident from the record that the petitioner absented from duty without prior intimation or prior permission of the immediate superior. The Road Transport Corporation being an essential and public utility service, as rightly held by respondent nos. 1 to 3, the petitioner deserves disciplinary action for his conduct of absenting from duty without intimation or permission. 11. However, the punishment imposed on the petitioner of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect seems a little bit harsh and RC,J W.P.No.24962 of 2007 7 disproportionate to the irregularity committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the same needs modification and the ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is modified to that of deferring the annual increment for one year without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect, however, by considering the contention of the learned Standing Counsel without any monetary benefit. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by respondent no.2-Divisional Manager vide Proceedings No.PA/20(286)/92-DVM(N), dated 27.11.1993, which was confirmed by respondent no.1-Regional Manager, Nellore vide proceedings No.St/675(12)/2006-RM(NLR), dated 29.01.2007 to that of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, but without any monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR