THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24543 of 2005 Date: 17.11.2005 Between: P.Satyanarayana .. PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC and others. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in Bhadrachalam Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. A charge memo was issued to him on 23.03.2003 alleging that he issued tickets of lower denomination while conducting a service. A charge sheet was issued on 29.03.2003 and a departmental enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the enquiry report, dated 06.05.2003, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, in turn, submitted his reply to the enquiry report on 20.05.2003. Thereafter, the first respondent issued an order-cum- show cause notice for suspension period on 28.05.2003. Through this, the second respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. He has also called upon the petitioner to explain as to why the period of suspension shall not be treated as ‘not on duty’. On receiving the explanation, a separate order was passed treating the period of suspension as ‘on duty’. Aggrieved by the order of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, the petitioner preferred an appeal and it was dismissed on 30.10.2003. Hence, this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could not have been imposed without issuing a show cause notice. He urges that when the second respondent has thought it fit to issue a show cause notice in relation to the manner in which the period of suspension shall be treated, he ought to have done the same thing for imposition of the penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect. The learned standing counsel on the other hand, submits that the penalty was imposed only after conducting a departmental enquiry and the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the imposition of penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner in accordance with law. With the Judgment of the Supreme Court KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB , there does not exist any doubt that the stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. Such a penalty can be imposed only after conducting a departmental enquiry and by following the other procedure applicable thereto. In the instant case, the second respondent has conducted the departmental enquiry and the Enquiry Officer found the charge levelled against the petitioner has proved. To that extent, the procedure adopted by him does not suffer from any illegality. However, before the major penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was imposed, the second respondent was under obligation to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. Such a step was not taken, obviously, under the impression that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty. However, since it had emerged that it is a major penalty, the respondent has to issue a show cause notice, as he did in the case of the manner in which the period of suspension shall be treated. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside in so far as it relates to the imposition of penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for passing fresh orders after issuing notice to the petitioner. _______________ 18.11.2005 kdl