IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18273 of 2008 Between: R.Krishna S/o.Ramanaiah R/o.7-293, Taraka Rama Nagar, Asifabad, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Represented by its Regional Manager, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C. Represented by its Depot Manager, Huzurabad Bus Depot, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of WRit of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings No. 02/95(13)/2001/-HZB dt. 22.9.2001 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the Proceedings. No. 02/95(13)/2001/-HZB dt. 22.9.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent by granting increments to the petitioner and pass such further other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18273 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in Huzurabad Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 25.06.2001, alleging certain acts and omissions on his part. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.07.2001. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd respondent appointed an enquiry officer. A report, dated 31.08.2001 was submitted, holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 22.09.2001, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Further, the period of suspension was directed to be treated as not on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager. The appeal was dismissed on 21.05.2007 as time barred. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the 2nd respondent did not issue the second show cause notice as contemplated under the A.P.S.R.T.C. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). Reliance is placed upon certain decided cases. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that even assuming that what is imposed on the petitioner is a major penalty, the prescribed procedure viz., conducting of departmental enquiry, has been complied with, and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. After receiving explanation from the petitioner, in response to the show cause notice, the 2nd respondent appointed an enquiry officer and domestic enquiry was conducted. It is no doubt true that the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was treated as a major penalty and it was held in several judgments including the one in Kottapati Jayachandra Reddy vs. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. that such punishment cannot be imposed, except by conducting departmental enquiry. In the instant case, the departmental enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment does not apply to the facts of this case. The other complaint of the petitioner is about the issuance of second show cause notice. The Supreme Court categorically held in several cases that the second show cause notice cannot be claimed by the delinquent employee, as a matter of right. All the same, Regulation 12(13) of the Regulations provides for issuance of show cause notice, only when the punishments of certain categories are proposed to be inflicted. Stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect is not covered by the said provision. Therefore, no illegality can be said to have crept into the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 22.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18273 of 2008 Date: 22.08.2008 JSU