THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9610 of 2008 Dated: 28.04.2010 Between: Y. Ramesh Babu. .. Petitioner. And The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, while the petitioner was working as Technical Work Inspector with the respondent Corporation, on the basis of complaints received against him alleging that he demanded bribe from the beneficiaries of Indiramma Scheme for supplying steel and cement to them, the 3rd respondent –District Collector/Executive Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Kadapa, suspended the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 09.05.2006, and thereafter the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 24.08.2006. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.08.2006 to the 3rd respondent, denying the allegations leveled against him, and also submitted another explanation to the 3rd respondent, as directed by the Deputy Executive Engineer. However, having not satisfied with the said explanations, the 3rd respondent, by impugned proceedings dated 08.09.2006, imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and ordered to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as leave for which he was eligible. While admitting the writ petition on 25.09.2008, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 08.09.2006. The counter affidavit filed along with vacate stay petition does not indicate that a detailed domestic enquiry as required under law was conducted before issuance of the impugned proceedings. Further, the regulations governing the service conditions of the petitioner do not contemplate imposition of a major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect without conducting a detailed enquiry. Before imposing any major punishment, the management is supposed to conduct a detailed enquiry as per the regulations and pass appropriate orders thereafter. In this case, admittedly, no detailed enquiry as required under law has been conducted while imposing the major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. On this ground alone, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. However, since there is some allegation against the petitioner, instead of remanding the matter for re-consideration, I deem it appropriate to resolve the dispute here itself by modifying the impugned order as under: “The punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner-workman is modified to that of the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, and the rest of the order i.e., treating the suspension period of the petitioner as leave for which he was eligible, is not disturbed.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 28.04.2010 v v