HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27389 2010 Between: S.S.Reddy …. Petitioner and The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. By its Managing Director and others …. Respondents This court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27389 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 06.05.1994, in imposing the punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. It is stated to have been confirmed in appeal and also in revision. The grievance of the petitioner is that withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty but, however, imposed such penalty without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced circular No.LO.1/99, dated 19.02.1999, issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director referring to Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations and the penalties that may be imposed upon an employee by the disciplinary authority and also referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1], wherein it was held that imposing punishment with cumulative effect would amount to a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed unless an enquiry is conducted and, therefore, instructed all disciplinary authorities not to impose the punishment of withholding the increment with cumulative effect until an enquiry as contemplated under CC&A Regulations is conducted. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and circular instructions, the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities is illegal and unsustainable. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent imposed the punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. It is also not disputed that the said punishment was imposed without conducting any regular enquiry. In the light of the circular instructions and also the judgment referred supra, such imposition of major penalty is illegal and unsustainable as it was not preceded by regular departmental enquiry. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings, dated 06.05.1994, are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, this order will not preclude the respondents, if they choose to take appropriate action with reference to alleged irregularity committed by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 8th November 2010 lmv [1] 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504