IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 2694 of 2005 Between: M.Vishnu Murthy, S/o.Veera Chary, R/o.Narva Post, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole Region, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Markapur Division, Prakasam District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Giddalur Bus Depot, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings No.M1/2(8)/00-GDLR, dated 13-12-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the proceedings No.M1/2(8)/0-GDLR, dated 13-12-2001 issued by the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court at the admission stage made the following O R D E R: Questioning the impugned proceedings dated 13.12.2001, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that without conducting any enquiry, major penalty has been imposed on the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the penalty was imposed in the year 2001 and, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. For certain irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner, a charge sheet dated 09.05.2001 was issued to him and he gave an explanation. As the explanation was found not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority imposed a major penalty of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Imposing a major penalty without conducting regular departmental enquiry cannot be sustained under law. Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted in this case. Though it is a matter to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested this Court to modify the major penalty imposed by the third respondent to that of a minor penalty. As the alleged irregularities have taken place in the year 2001, at this point of time, it is not desirable to remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority for conducting regular departmental enquiry and further more, the petitioner has requested to impose minor penalty. Therefore, the penalty can be modified in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the penalty of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect to that of deferment of one annual increment without cumulative effect. Petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits. No costs. 16.02.2005 usd To 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole Region, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Markapur Division, Prakasam District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Giddalur Bus Depot, Prakasam District. 4. Two CD copies.