THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.2810 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is presently working as a Mechnic in A.P.State Road Transport Corporation in its third respondent-Depot, filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the office order, dated 08.03.1995, passed by the third respondent-Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Depot-1, in proceedings No.M1/255/(53)/94- KRMR-I, by which, as a measure of penalty, his pay was reduced by two incremental stages for a period of three years, which shall have effect on his future increments, as confirmed by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Karimnagar Region, by his order, dated 27.03.1998, passed in proceedings No.M1/19(5)/98-DY.CME. Primarily, the impugned order is questioned on the ground that though the punishment imposed is a major one, no regular enquiry is conducted as per the Regulations before passing the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.340 of 2006 and batch, dated 10.04.2006, wherein it was held that major penalty cannot be imposed, without conducting regular enquiry. This Court by an order, dated 11.02.2010, issued notice before admission. In response to the same, the Senior Law Officer of the respondent-Corporation filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while generally dealing with the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner drove vehicle bearing No.AP9 Z 1733 unauthorisedly in reverse direction on 15.07.1994 in Karimnagar-I Depot garage premises and as a result of the same, the vehicle dashed a stationed vehicle bearing No.AP9 Z 1174, resulting severe injuries to a Mechanic by name, Sri Pentaiah. Therefore, charge sheet, dated 27.07.1994, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order, dated 08.03.1995, was issued imposing the punishment. With regard to the allegation of the petitioner that no regular enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order, it is stated in the counter that Regulation 8(iv) of APSRTC (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short ‘the Regulations) deals with withholding of increments as one of the penalties and as per Regulation 12 of the Regulations, no enquiry is contemplated for imposing punishment under Regulation 8(iv). It is further stated that there is abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court and as such, he is not entitled to the relief. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. I have also perused the copy of the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, by which, the pay of the petitioner was reduced by two incremental stages for a period of three years, which shall have effect on his future increments. It is not in dispute that before passing the impugned order, no regular enquiry is conducted and the impugned order is passed merely by issuing a show-cause notice and calling for the explanation of the petitioner. Though it is the contention of the respondent-Corporation that no enquiry is contemplated under the Regulations while imposing punishment under Regulation 8(iv) of the Regulations, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.340 of 2006 has rejected the very same plea of the Corporation and confirmed the judgment of a learned Single Judge, wherein it was held that punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect, cannot be ordered without conducting regular enquiry. In view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, as confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.340 of 2006 and batch, the plea of the respondent-Corporation that no enquiry need be conducted before imposing the penalty as ordered in the impugned order, cannot be accepted. Further, there was some delay even on the part of the respondents-writ petitioners in W.A.No.340 of 2006 also and the said plea was considered by the Division Bench and refused to grant any monetary benefits to the petitioners therein. In view of the same, the plea of the respondents that the case of the petitioner is to be rejected only on the ground of delay, cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 08.03.1995, passed by the third respondent-Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Depot- 1, in proceedings No.M1/255/(53)/94-KRMR-I, and the order, dated 27.03.1998, passed by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Karimnagar Region, passed in proceedings No.M1/19(5)/98-DY.CME, are set aside with a direction to the respondents to re-fix the salary of the petitioner and pay the same accordingly. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits towards arrears of salary by reason of setting aside the impugned orders by this Court. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ____________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J. Date:08.06.2010 VGB