THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24342 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was working as a Driver in Nagar Kurnool Dep APSRTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him allegin an accident took place on 01.02.2008 on account of his rash and neg driving. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge shee departmental enquiry was conducted. Taking the report of the En Officer into account, the Depot Manager, the second respondent h passed an order, dated 07.08.2008, imposing the punishment of defe of two annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative e besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty. The Regional Manager, the first respondent herein, entertained motu review against the order, dated 07.08.2008, passed by the se respondent and modified the punishment through a final order, 25.08.2008. Instead of deferment of increment for a period of two years cumulative effect, the first respondent imposed the punishment of redu of pay by two stages permanently. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Sta Counsel for the respondents. The first respondent is conferred with the power of review o orders passed by the Depot Manager or the Divisional Manager, as the may be. Such review can be at the instance of the employee concern suo motu. Where the first respondent intends to exercise suo motu p the first and foremost thing he should do is to issue a notice to the aff employee, particularly when he proposes to impose a more s punishment. In the instant case, the first respondent has chosen to impo severe punishment on the petitioner than the one imposed by the se respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The order is ex illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. On that short g alone, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:01.10.2010 VGB