THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16586 OF 2010 DATED 5TH OCTOBER, 2010 BETWEEN T.Satyanarayana Murthy … Petitioner And Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16586 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, a Clerk in the service of the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL) was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2009. He thereafter retired from service on 30.06.2010. Basing on the disciplinary proceedings, order dated 16.12.2009 was issued by the APSPDCL imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority, viz., the Chief General Manager, HRD of the APSPDCL. However, by order dated 26.04.2010 the appeal was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. Sri B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the disciplinary action taken against his client on the preliminary ground that it was not preceded by an enquiry. He placed reliance on KULWANT SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1] in this regard. In its counter, the APSPDCL admitted to the fact that no regular enquiry had been held in the matter as the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, according to it, was a minor penalty. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSPDCL, produced the Regulations of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board which are followed by the APSPDCL. He pointed out that under the Schedule relatable to Regulation 7(a), withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect are classified under minor penalties. He therefore submitted that it was not required as per the said Regulation to hold a regular enquiry before visiting upon the petitioner the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. It is however to be noticed that one of the major penalties stipulated in the Regulations is ‘Reduction to a lower time scale/ lower stage in a time scale’. Needless to state, in the event of the APSPDCL imposing such a punishment it would first have to hold a regular domestic enquiry. In this regard, reference may also be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in KULWANT SINGH GILL: “(4) Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5 (v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent.” In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the action of the APSPDCL in classifying the punishment of withholding of an increment with cumulative effect as a minor penalty results in an anomaly as ‘reduction in a lower stage in the time scale’ is classified as a major penalty. The effect of postponement of an increment with cumulative effect would inevitably be reduction to a lower stage in the time scale. The classification of these two punishments in the Regulations is therefore self-contradictory. Viewed thus, the action of the APSPDCL in imposing the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner necessarily had to be preceded by a regular domestic enquiry, which is admittedly wanting. The said punishment, confirmed thereafter in appeal, is therefore unsustainable in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2009, confirmed in appeal under order dated 26.04.2010. As the petitioner has already retired from service, there shall be a consequential direction to the respondents to release his terminal benefits as per entitlement. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 5TH OCTOBER, 2010 VGSR/PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16586 OF 2010 5TH OCTOBER, 2010 [1] 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 504