*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Writ Petition No.16406 of 2007 % Dated 31.07.2008 # K.Babu Rao S/o. Surya Narayana R/o. Nara Kodur (P), Chebroulu (M), Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND $ 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Regional, Guntur District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Division, Guntur District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur-II bus Depot, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN ^Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16406 of 2008 Between: K.Babu Rao S/o. Surya Narayana R/o. Nara Kodur (P), Chebroulu (M), Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Regional, Guntur District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Division, Guntur District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur-II bus Depot, Guntur District. .....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 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. 01/2(10)/01-GNT-2, dt. 20-03-2002 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the respondent and pass such further other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstaces of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16406 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in Guntur-II Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 10.09.2001, the bus being driven by him, on the route from Guntur to Hyderabad slipped into a ditch, on the way. Therefore, he was issued a charge sheet on 26.11.2001 and on the same day, he was placed under suspension. An enquiry oﬃcer was appointed; and he submitted a report, holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. The remarks of the petitioner were called for, at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, the Depot Manager, 3rd respondent herein, passed an order, dated 20.03.2002, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay scale of the petitioner by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as not on duty. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Manager was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. Sri Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is violative of Clause (13) of Regulation 12 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). He contends that though departmental enquiry was conducted, no show cause notice, proposing the punishment, was issued to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that withholding of increments is a minor penalty and as such, there is no necessity for issuing a show cause notice under Clause (13) of Regulation 12 of the Regulations. There is some controversy as to the nature of punishment that is inﬂicted on the petitioner. While according to the petitioner, it amounts to reduction in pay scale, the respondents contends that it is a case of mere withholding of increments. This diﬀerence would have a bearing upon the procedure to be followed before the punishment is inflicted. Regulation 8 of the Regulations enlists the penalties, that can be imposed on the employees, as a measure of punishment. Clauses (iv) and (vii) of Regulation 8(1), which are relevant for this purpose, read as under: 8(1)(iv) withholding of increments; (vii) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale, whether in the same class of service or in another class, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; Withholding of increments, that are due to an employee in future, falls under clause (iv). The reduction of pay scale, which an employee is already drawing, on the other hand, falls within clause (vii) of Regulation 8(1). In other words, the increments that have already been earned by an employee in the past and which in turn became part of the basic salary are taken away, resulting in reduction of basic pay. Such a punishment squarely falls under clause (vii). The punishment imposed on the petitioner is that his basic pay is reduced by two incremental stages for a period of two years. This naturally attracts clause (vii) of Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations. Regulation 12 of the Regulations prescribes the procedure to be followed before a punishment is imposed on an employee. There is no dispute that domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the charges framed against him were held proved. The stage, after submission of the report of the enquiry oﬃcer, is dealt with under Clauses (12) and (13) of Regulation 12, which read as under: 12 (12) The authority competent to impose the penalty shall, if it is not the Enquiring authority, consider the proceedings of the enquiry and records its ﬁndings on each charge. 12(13) The authority competent to impose the penalty shall then determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the employee, and pass appropriate orders on the case. If the penalty proposed to be imposed is one of the penalties speciﬁed in items (vii) (viii) and (ix) of Regulation 8, he should be given an opportunity to show cause why the said penalty should not be imposed. From this, it becomes evident that before a penalty speciﬁed in Clause (vii) of Regulation 8(1) is imposed, the disciplinary authority is under obligation to issue a show cause notice indicating the proposed penalty. Admittedly, such a notice was not issued in this case. Learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground of delay. It needs to be mentioned that the soon after receiving the order, dated 20.03.2002, the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal and that, in turn, took some time. When a serious illegality is discerned, the delay, which itself is not enormous, cannot be treated as a factor to deny the relief. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It shall be open to the 3rd respondent to cause notice to the petitioner, under Regulation 12(13) and pass orders thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 31.07.2008 JSU LR Copy marked. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16406 of 2008 Date: 31.07.2008 JSU