D.K.Reddy vs. The Regional Manager

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 31138 of 2011

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the

1 st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No.PA/19(28)/2009-RM:MBNR dated 07.01.2010 and imposing punishment on the petitioner by reducing basic pay by two increment stages with cumulative effect for a period of two years, as illegal, arbitrary and disproportionate and set aside the same; and consequently direct the respondents to release annual increments without reducing petitioner's basic pay, with all attendant benefits and consequential benefits which are due to the petitioner by considering the review petition dated 08.04.2010 forthwith.

The petitioner is driver in the respondent-Corporation The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-corporation in the year 1995 on casual basis and thereafter his services were regularized in 1996. While working at Nagarkurnool, a charge sheet was issued on 27.12.2007 with charges against the petitioner for driving the vehicle in a gross negligent manner with lack of

anticipation. After conducting enquiry, the Depot Manager, Nagarkurnool by proceedings dated 30.06.2008, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Travelling Manager (CTM), who by proceedings dated 12.02.2009 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the rejection of appeal, the petitioner filed revision before the 1 st respondent i.e. Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar Region. The 1 st respondent, vide his proceedings dated 07.01.2010, while taking a lenient view and setting aside the order issued by the CTM vide proceedings dated 12.02.2009, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service. However, as a measure of punishment, the petitioner's basic pay was reduced by two incremental stages with cumulative effect for a period of two years and the period from the date of removal till the date he reports for duty is treated as 'no duty' for all purposes. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has been reinstated into service. The petitioner made a representation dated 08.04.2010 addressed to the 1 st respondent, but presented before the 2 nd respondent-Depot Manager, and the same is pending for consideration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any illegality and having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1 st respondent has allowed the review application, while setting aside the

order of removal of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that having set aside the order of removal passed by the 2 nd respondent ordering reinstatement of the petitioner and, having imposed punishment of reduction of present basic pay by two increment stages with cumulative effect for a period of two years and treating the period from the date of removal till the petitioner reports for duty as 'no duty', the filed a representation dated 08.04.2010 once again 'through proper channel' i.e. to the 1 st respondent by forwarding it through the 2 nd respondent. The said representation is stated to be pending on the file of the 1 st respondent.

That being the position, without expressing any opinion on the relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to dispose of the representation dated 08.04.2010 stated to have been filed by the petitioner to the 1 st respondent through the 2 nd respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

___________________________

05 th December, 2011

KSM