HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.471 of 2011 Date: January 21, 2011 Between: G. Ramaswamy … Petitioner And 1. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.471 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Sridhar Reddy Pottigari, learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The writ petitioner while working as a conductor attached to the Husnabad Depot of the APSRTC was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on 22.3.2002 that resulted in an order passed by the second respondent-Depot Manager on 19.10.2002 imposing the punishment of withholding one annual increment which shall have the effect on his further increments, in other words, one increment has been withheld with cumulative effect. Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is considered to be a major punishment, imposition of which requires the detailed procedure to be followed. Whereas, imposition of the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, being a minor punishment can be imposed by the competent disciplinary authority after putting the employee concerned on notice and after considering the defence offered. In the instant case, the second respondent-Depot Manager has not followed the detailed procedure required to be followed for imposition of major punishment as per the APSRTC Employees’ (CC&A) Regulations. But however, he has put the writ petitioner on notice and considered his explanation and then proceeded to impose punishment. 3. The learned standing counsel has rightly pointed out that the writ petitioner is guilty of approaching this Court a little more than 8 years time after the punishment has been imposed and hence he suggested that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn my attention to a judgment rendered by me on 29th December 2010 in W.P. No.33220 of 2010 wherein I have pointed out that the order of punishment can be severed into two parts and the sustainable part can be retained by suitably modifying it. If the order passed by the second respondent is to be treated as a simple and pure punishment of stoppage of one increment, no exception can be drawn thereto. But however, for the sheer delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, the petitioner should not be entitled to stake any claim for monetary benefits. 5. In the instant case, the learned counsel has pointed out that the writ petitioner has prayed to modify the punishment order to that of one of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect without any arrears or monetary benefits and hence the case of the writ petitioner deserves consideration and the same treatment as was meted out to the petitioner in W.P. No.33220 of 2010. 6. Therefore, for the reasons set out in the said judgment dated 29th December 2010 in W.P. No.33220 of 2010, I modify the order of punishment dated 19th October 2002 passed by the second respondent-Depot Manager by treating as punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. However, this modification of punishment will not enure to any financial benefit to the petitioner except for fixation of his pay while granting next increment and terminal benefits. The writ petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits. 7. The writ petitioner is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: January 21, 2011. BSB