IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 1308 of 2005 Between: C.V. Ramana S/o C.C. Narasanna R/o D. No. 13-3-100, Srinivasanagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Ananthapur Depot, Ananthapur .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the proceedings No. 02/95(128/04-ATP dated 7-12-2004 of the respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondent to add one annual increment to the pay of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:S.SURENDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is working as a conductor in the respondent-Corporation. He was issued a charge memo on 15-10-2004 and after receiving the explanation final order was passed on 7-12-2004 imposing major penalty of with-holding one annual increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner questioned the said order on the ground that postponing the annual increment without conducting a regular enquiry in the department itself is bad and contrary to the Rules and Regulations. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court i n Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab wherein the Supreme Court held that since the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major punishment, the order cannot be sustained without an enquiry. The petitioner, therefore seeks to declare the order as illegal and it is liable to be set aside. 3. Therefore, after considering the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on account of non-conducting of enquiries and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the decision (cited supra). Under these circumstances, I am of the view that it would be appropriate if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is treated as reduction of one annual increment without cumulative effect. But, the petitioner is not entitled to the difference of the amount, if any, by virtue of this order for the period from the date of the impugned order till the date of this order. However, he is entitled to get increments on notional calculation from the date of this order to which he is entitled to, as he has been imposed penalty of reduction of one annual increment without cumulative effect. 4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. No order as to costs. _______________ 1st February, 2005. mrb To 1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Ananthapur Depot, Ananthapur 2. Two CD Copies.