THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1809 OF 2004 DATED 4th FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN: G.Srihari … Petitioner A n d The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar Dist. And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1809 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner, a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the APSRTC’), challenges the punishment imposed upon him whereby his increment was withheld for a period of one year with effect on future increments. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC in the year 1995. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 22.12.1999 in respect of certain cash and ticket irregularities said to have been detected while he was conducting the bus service between Jammikunta and Mamidalapally on 04.12.1999. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet on 30.12.1999 denying the allegations levelled against him. It appears that the APSRTC did not resort to the procedure of holding an enquiry into the matter and the Disciplinary Authority, being the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Huzurabad Depot, straightaway passed the final order dated 10.03.2000 imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of withholding of his increment for a period of one year with effect on future increments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal, which was rejected by order dated 31.08.2002. Thereafter, his Review also met with the same fate under order dated 22.01.2003. Hence, this writ petition. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the procedure adopted by the APSRTC in imposing the major punishment of withholding the petitioner’s increment with cumulative effect is unsustainable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in KULWANT SINGH GILL V/s. STATE OF PUNJAB[1]. It is not in dispute that the APSRTC did not hold any enquiry into the allegations of misconduct levelled against the petitioner under charge sheet dated 22.12.1999 before resorting to the imposition of the punishment. It is also not in dispute that withholding of the petitioner’s increment with cumulative effect amounts to a major punishment. In such view of the matter, the judgment of the Supreme Court in KULWANT SINGH GILL is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Therein, the Supreme Court categorically held that imposition of a major penalty without enquiry was per se illegal. The action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Huzurabad Depot, under order dated 10.03.2000 withholding the petitioner’s increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, thereafter confirmed in Appeal under order dated 31.08.2002 and in Review by order dated 22.01.2003, is therefore illegal and unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, without costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 4th FEBRUARY, 2010 PGS [1] 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 504