IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7854 of 2008 Between: E.S. Kumar, S/o. Seethaiah, R/o. Kothakonda (P) Bhindhavaripally (M), Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep by its Regional Manager, APSRTC., Warangal Region, Warangal, Warangal District. 2 The APSRTC., rep by its Depot Manager, Parkal bus Depot, Parkal, Warangal 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 issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the proceeding No. PA/19(77)/2000-RM:WL dated 22-07-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set a side the proceedings PA/19(77)/2000-RM:WL dated 22-07-2000 issued by the 1st respondent and pass such further other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstancesof the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BHASKAR 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 : 7854 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vide proceedings, dated 18.06.1997, the Depot Manager, 2nd respondent herein, imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal, before the appellate authority, and it was rejected. Against the same, he filed a review before the 1st respondent. Through his order, dated 22.07.2000, the 1st respondent modified the punishment, by reducing the period from one year to six months. The petitioner challenges the same, on the ground that the order of punishment was not preceded by any departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an increment is withheld with cumulative effect, it deserves to be treated as a major penalty and the same can be imposed, only after conducting departmental enquiry. He places reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is barred by laches and that the Service Regulations of the Corporation do not insist on holding of departmental enquiry, before imposing the punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect. The dispute in this writ petition is no longer res integra. In KULWANTH SINGH GILL’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that the stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same can be imposed, only after conducting departmental enquiry. Inasmuch as such an enquiry was not held in this case, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner approached this Court belatedly, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the order of punishment is directed to be treated without cumulative effect, by denying the resultant arrears to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the punishment against the petitioner to be one of stoppage of annual increment for a period of six (6) months, without cumulative effect; and the petitioner shall not be entitled to the arrears up to 31.03.2008. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 11.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7854 of 2008 Date: 11.04.2008 JSU