THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6338 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in imposing punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect vide proceedings No.7BN/E/DAR/MAJ/04/2002/2003-3049 dated 14/23.6.2003 which is confirmed by second respondent and further confirmed by third respondent vide proceedings No.2003/Sec. (ABE)/DAR/A/14 dated December, 2003 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his juniors and pay the same with arrears including seniority, promotion and other benefits. Under the impugned order dated 14/23.6.2003, petitioner was imposed with punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect, which was confirmed by the respondents 2 and 3. The charges levelled against the petitioner reads as under: “On 19.4.2002, Shri Vishram Das, HC/1730 of ‘E’ Coy No.7BN/RPSF/MLY while on duty at BBS at the time of Roll Call misbehaved with ASI/S.N.Singh by asking him to call HC/P.Das and HC/C.R.Mohan Kudu from OP/GHNH which was not his affair. This was informed to CC ‘E’ Coy. Thus he exhibited insubordination first with ASI. Shri I.Venkati, CC ‘E’ Coy advised HC/Vishram Das that he should put up his own grievances but not of others. HC/Vishram Das in an infuriated tone stated that he was the President RPSF Association of 7BN and he could ask anybody’s grievance and he could also talk to DIG or DG and that how CC could prevent him. He questioned so m any other issues about the deployment of staff and exhibited gross misbehaviour with CC ‘E’ Coy on the pretext of his post in the Association. He also supported HC/Lala Ram of ‘E’ Coy for his irresponsible talk. After disposal of the Roll Call he used most vulgar and unparliamentary language against the CC ‘E’ Coy which is ever heard. He also threatened him that he would deal against CC ‘E’ Coy through the Association. Thus, he violated the code of behaviour as a member of the Force. Thus exhibited gross indiscipline, disobedience and serious misconduct. His conduct was discreditable and was abusive and abbressive towards immediate superior thus violating rule 46.1, 146.4, 146.5(a) and (b) and 147(xiii) of RPF Rules, 1987”. Though the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation stating that he is the President of the Head Constable’s Association and he represented the grievance of some of the Head Constables, since they were all genuine. In spite of the same, a charge memo has been issued and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charges are partly proved. Having not satisfied with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority without issuing any notice as to deferring with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, on his own consideration came to the conclusion that the charges are proved and thus, imposed the petitioner with punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal and revision and both the appellate authority as well as revisional authority confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner being the President of Head Constables’ Association, he has every right to represent and ventilate the grievance of the members of the Association and the charges would reflect the same. Simply because, he has raised his voice, it does not mean that he has no right to represent the grievance of the members of the Association. Even assuming that the charges are proved, they are trivial in nature and do not require punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years. The respondents ought to have seen that the petitioner had only represented the cause of the Association and he has every right to represent the same which cannot be treated as misconduct. Apart from that, while deferring with the findings of the enquiry officer, petitioner was not given any opportunity, therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Whereas the learned counsel for respondents supported the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority and stated that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct of raising voice against his superior officers while representing the grievance of members of the Association. May be, petitioner is entitled to represent the grievance of the members of the Association, but he is not supposed to raise his voice against his superiors and create a scene. Therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority are just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is not of his personal behaviour. He represented the cause of the members of the Association. May be, while representing, he has raised his voice, but that does not mean that the petitioner has committed misconduct. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has misbehaved with his superior officers in ventilating the grievance of the members of the Association. A cryptic order has been passed by the disciplinary authority and a pedantic approach was made by the appellate authority and revisonal authority in confirming the impugned order. Be that as it may, the punishment was imposed on the petitioner as early as on 14/23.6.2003, but he could not have been denied promotion after completion of three years. Firstly, I am of the opinion that the charges itself do not stand to scrutiny of law, as they are trivial in nature, and do not warrant punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Secondly, at the most, petitioner should have warned for raising his voice and instead of doing that, respondents have taken a serious of the same and imposed the petitioner with punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Under those circumstances, since the petitioner has already suffered increments for a period of three years, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents cannot deny his seniority and promotion from the cadre of Head Constable to the higher category on the ground that he has suffered punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of three years. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider seniority and promotion of the petitioner on par with his juniors without taking into consideration of the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 31.1.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6338 of 2005 31.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6338 of 2005 Date: 31st January, 2011 Between: Vishram Das, H.C.No.1730 .. Petitioner And Adjutant/Assistant Commandant-II, 7th BTN, Rly. Protection Spl. Force (RPSF), Moula Ali, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents