THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 1432 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted for declaring the action of the respondent bank as illegal for not restoring the increments pursuant to the judgment rendered by this court in WP No. 2649 of 1989, rendered on 20.3.2003. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially recruited to the service of the 1st respondent – Bank as a clerk on 6.6.1977. He promoted subsequently as an Officer with effect from 10.12.1983. Upon being posted as such, he joined as an Officer at Vijayawada on 20.1.1984. However, he was transferred from Vijayawada to Guntur Regional Office on 5.2.1985 and while he was working there, the Deputy General Manager of the bank passed orders initially placing the writ petitioner under suspension on 3.7.1985. That was followed up by a proceeding dated 16.1.1986 of the Deputy General Manager framing charges against the petitioner. Since the writ petitioner has not admitted the same, disciplinary proceedings were conducted and the Inquiry Officer filed his report dated 30.10.1986 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Based thereon, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay from Rs.1475/- per month to Rs.1355/- per month. Since the appeal preferred against the said punishment has been turned down, the petitioner has instituted WP No. 2649 of 1989 in this court challenging the validity of the punishment order. This court by judgment dated 20.3.2003, rendered in the above writ petition declared the orders passed by the Deputy General Manager and Disciplinary authority on 30.12.1986, imposing the penalty of reduction of pay to the lower stage from the time scale of pay of Rs.1475/- to Rs.1355/- per month in the scale of pay of Rs.1175-2675 as invalid. Hence, the writ petition was allowed. The writ petitioner has preferred a representation to the General Manager on 7.12.2004 complaining that the judgment rendered by the High Court in WP No. 2649 of 1989 dated 20.3.2003 has not been implemented so far and his two increments have not been restored. In that backdrop, the present writ petition came to be instituted. I have heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank while admitting that the Deputy General Manager of the Bank imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower stage of pay from Rs.1475/- to Rs.1355/- per month, but, however, it has been asserted thereafter as under: “…. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority while ordering the aforesaid penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner, however, stated that pending the outcome of the other charge sheet dt. 22.9.1986, the penalty would not be given effect to. Accordingly, the penalty was not given effect to.” It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that by the time the Deputy General Manager has imposed the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner, the petitioner was facing yet another disciplinary proceeding pursuant to a charge sheet drawn against him on 22.9.1986. Therefore, the disciplinary authority has categorically noted that the punishment will not be given effect to and implemented till the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet dated 22.9.1986 are known. It was further asserted in the counter affidavit that a final order has been passed against the petitioner on 28.7.1988, dismissing the writ petitioner from the service of the bank. In view of this punishment, the earlier order passed by the Deputy General Manager on 30.12.1986 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay has not been given effect to or acted upon. It has been specifically asserted in the counter affidavit in so many words that the order of punishment dated 30.12.1986 reducing his pay has not been given effect to and hence it is contended that there is no necessity for acting any further in terms of the judgment rendered by this court on WP No. 2649 of 1989 dated 20.3.2003. Though the petitioner has filed a rejoinder/reply affidavit in the matter, he merely denies the assertions of the respondents and puts them on proof. He has not stated anywhere as to what was the pay that he has drawn after 30.12.1986, till such time he was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service on 28.7.1988. That material, the most crucial for deciding the issue, has not been addressed or established. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn my attention to the orders passed by the Deputy General Manager and Disciplinary authority on 30.12.1986 wherein it is stated as under: “As such, it is hereby ordered that the pay of the Officer be reduced from Rs.1,475/- p.m. to Rs.1,35/- p.m. in the time scale of Rs.1175-60-1475- 70-1895-EB-95-2275-100-2675 with immediate effect. However, the operative portion of this order may be given effect to on completion of the other major penalty proceedings initiated against this officer in respect of charges leveled against him vide letter of charge dated 22.09.1986.” (emphasis is mine) From a perusal of the order of punishment dated 30.12.1986 of the Deputy General Manager, it is manifestly clear that the order of punishment of reduction of his pay from Rs.1475/- to Rs.1355/- was ordered not to be given effect to immediately. It was made to await the result of the other disciplinary proceedings. As was already noticed supra, the other disciplinary proceedings ended with the penalty of dismissal from service. Hence, the question of giving effect to an order of reduction of pay would not arise. Though the writ petitioner has challenged the validity of those proceedings separately and also succeeded, no material is brought on record of this case to demonstrate that he has been paid either his wages or the subsistence allowance or his terminal benefits including gratuity duly calculating his wages at the reduced rate of Rs.1355/- per month. In the absence of any such material, I am inclined to accept the contention of the Bank that the punishment order dated 30.12.1986 has not been given effect to. As was already noticed supra, validity of such proceeding is the subject matter of challenge in WP No. 2649 of 1989, and this court by its judgment dated 20.3.2003 has declared those proceedings as invalid. Therefore, after 20.3.2003, the question of the respondent Bank either acting upon or giving effect to such a proceeding would not arise. Therefore, the petitioner has clearly failed to demonstrate that the respondent bank has given effect to the proceedings dated 30.12.1986, any time prior to 20.3.2003, the date on which this court rendered its judgment in WP No. 2649 of 1989 declaring the said proceeding as valid. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. But, however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Knk Dt : 17.3.2011