IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7915 of 2008 Between: N. Appala Naidu, S/o. Late Satyanarayana R/o. Flat No. 401, White House, SBI Building, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Visakhaptanam rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director. 2 A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Visakhaptanam rep. by its Director (F & HRD). 3 Chief General Manager, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings HRD/DC/PO-IV/F.254/04/D.No.1002/06 dated 28.06.2006 issued by the disciplinary authority as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) declaring the proceedings issued by the appellate authority Memo No. HRD/DC/PO-IVF.254/D.No.417/07 dated 24.07.2007 as illegal and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7915 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Trainee Lineman in the year 1991, and subsequently it was converted as Sub-Engineer. The petitioner was promoted in the year 2001, as Additional Assistant Engineer. When he was working in that capacity, at Sarvakota Section, Vizianagaram District, a show cause notice dated 29-04-2004 was issued, pointing out certain acts of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22-05-2004. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed an order, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, and the appeal was rejected through memo dated 24-07- 2007. Hence, this writ petition. The main ground urged by Sri B. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a measure of penalty and it could not even be imposed without conducting departmental inquiry. Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that according to the Service Regulations of the Company, the stoppage of increment, even with cumulative effect is a minor penalty, and the order does not suffer from any illegality. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner commence with the issuance of the memo dated 08-11-2004, pointing out certain acts and omissions, constituting misconduct. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation, as to why suitable disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. Petitioner submitted his explanation, dealing with each and every allegation made in the show cause notice. The 2nd respondent did not propose to conduct any disciplinary inquiry. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he passed an order dated 28-06- 2006, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred against the same was confirmed by the 1st respondent. It is no doubt true that in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1], it was held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty, and that the same cannot be imposed, without conducting disciplinary inquiry. That, however, was with reference to the Punjab Civil Services, whereunder stoppage of increments, with cumulative effect was classified as a major penalty. Under the Service Regulations, that are adopted by the 1st respondent- Company, withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect, and directing recovery from pay, are classified as minor penalties; whereas withholding of promotion; reduction to a lower rank; compulsory retirement; removal; dismissal, and suspension, are treated as major penalties. Once the punishment inflicted against the petitioner is only a minor penalty, it cannot be said that the order is vitiated, on account of the fact that the 1st respondent did not conduct disciplinary inquiry. Even on merits, this Court is not satisfied, that the punishment inflicted against the petitioner is disproportionate to the allegations, which were held proved against the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 18-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] 1991 Supp.(1) SCC 504