HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.P. No. 4101 OF 2010 Thursday, the Fifteenth day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between Sangram Narender Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited, (An undertaking of Government of Andhra Pradesh,) Rep. By its Managing Director, Prohibition & Edcise Complex, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and another Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.P. NO. 4101 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: The proceedings dated 14.3.2001 issued by the first respondent imposing punishment of stoppage of promotion permanently under Rule 14(1)(b) of the A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules apart from recovery of Rs.58,586/- towards pecuniary loss sustained by the Corporation is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner joined services of the respondent Corporation as Stores Supervisor on 25.12.1986 and his services were regularized in the said category with effect from 25.12.1987. On 22.1.1991 the petitioner was served with a charge memo for the loss sustained by the Corporation and in culmination of the enquiry, punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Supervisor to that of Assistant permanently, was imposed apart from ordering recovery of 50% of the loss by order dated 27.9.1993. When the representation dated 18.10.1994 submitting by the petitioner did not materialize, he filed W.P. No. 28859 of 1995, which was allowed by this court on 25.11.1999 on the principle that an employee cannot be reduced in rank below the post to which he was actually recruited. As such, the petitioner was restored back as Store Supervisor by order dated 1.2.2000 but, however, served with the show cause notice dated 21.12.2000 proposing to remove him from service. To this show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 1.1.2001 to the effect that when reduction in rank below the post to which he was recruited was held to be illegal, removing him from service is unjust and, therefore, the impugned order came to be passed. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying imposition of the punishment. It is stated that when Rule 14(1)(b) of the Rules prescribes delay or stoppage of promotion under clause (iii) thereof, considering the gravity of the charges, the respondents are justified in inflicting the punishment of stopping the promotions permanently. It is further stated that the silence of the petitioner in not assailing the impugned order earlier for the reason that there were no promotional avenues is not a ground to condone the abnormal delay of more than nine years. He has to assail the same within a reasonable time under the APBCL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules and, therefore, the contentions of the petitioner do not merit consideration. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first Respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was no promotional channel for the petitioner, he did not challenge the impugned order and since for the first time the Respondent Corporation has brought in a promotional channel with effect from 9.11.2009 which gave cause of action for the petitioner to assail the imposition of punishment of stoppage of promotion permanently> he further contends that such imposition of punishment is neither sanctioned by Rule 14(1)(b) of the Rules nor the authority gets jurisdiction to impose such punishment and, therefore, the said order is non-est in the eye of law. He also contends that in a similar case, when imposition of the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect by order dated 13.11.1991 came to be challenged in WP No. 10488 of 1993, a learned Judge of this court by order dated 13.12.1997 has allowed the writ petition holding that such imposition of punishment is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority. He, therefore, contends that there cannot be stoppage of promotion permanently as contemplated in the above Rules not even by the amendment brought in by circular dated 28.3.2002 with retrospective effect from 14.6.1988. While it is contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that after having waited for nine long years, the present writ petition deserves no consideration and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for laches. Adverting to the order dated 13.12.2005 passed in W.P. No.10488 of 1993, it was a case where punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect imposed by the respondent Corporation was challenged, which was found to be beyond the jurisdiction of the authority inasmuch as the penalties enumerated under Rule 14 do not provide for imposition of such punishment as it becomes major punishment. Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the first respondent that there is abnormal delay of nine long years in assailing the impugned order, it submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is continuous cause of action for the petitioner as and when his junior gets promotion. I see some force in this contention. Under the above circumstance, the petitioner is entitled to question the impugned order by way of appeal as provided under the Departmental Regulations. Though a limitation of three months is provided for preferring an appeal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, inasmuch as there is continuous cause of action for the petitioner to assail the impugned order as and when his junior gets promotion. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks from today. As and when such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months thereafter. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 15, 2010 Copy within a week //BO// MAS