IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 14668 of 2005 Between: D. Kistaiah S/o late Balaiah Post & Vilalge, Yella Reddy Pet, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, and quash the impugned proceedings No.T2/62(228)/1993-KMR dated 08-11-1993 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings NO.steno/19(10)/2001-DVM.NZB dated 24-08-2002 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art, 14 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of Reg. 12 (2) of the APSRTC C.C. & A Reg. 1967 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the deffered increments along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. 2 . According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 08-12-1978 on regular basis. While he was working as such, he was charge sheeted on 29-09-1993 and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation with reference to the charges. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his explanation on 20-10-1993. Thereafter, the third respondent, if not satisfied with the explanation, instead of conducting regular departmental enquiry, imposed a punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 12 months which will have the affect on future increments. Though the petitioner filed an appeal and revision, he was not successful. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent imposed a major punishment against the petitioner without conducting regular departmental enquiry, which is essential in the light of the judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court. As no such departmental enquiry was conducted, the imposition of major penalty is illegal and unsustainable. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has, however, sought to sustain the impugned order. 5 . Admittedly, the third respondent imposed major punishment without conducting departmental enquiry. Therefore, the said disciplinary proceedings imposing a major punishment, which was confirmed in appeal and revision, is not sustainable. However, instead of remanding the matter, in view of the long lapse of time from the date of imposition of the punishment, it would be appropriate to modify the punishment. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby modified into one of withholding of annual increment for a period of 12 months without cumulative effect. It is further made clear that the modified order would come into effect only from the date of the order passed by this Court in the present writ petition and the petitioner would not entitle for any monetary benefits for the period prior to the date of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ S.ANANDA REDDY, J 07th July, 2005 SKM To 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District 4 Two CD copies