Writ Petition No.16460 of 2005 27-07-2005 Between: B.Ramulu. ... PETITONER AND The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Medak Division, Sangareddy, Medak District and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY Writ Petition No.16460 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent imposing a major penalty of withholding annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect. Though the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, he was unsuccessful. Hence, the present petition. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Driver in the year 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that he was charge sheeted on 07.09.1998 by the second respondent on the ground that he caused damage to the vehicle bearing No.AP10Z-3324 while driving the said vehicle and was called upon to submit his explanation. Accordingly, he submitted his explanation. Thereafter the second respondent, if he is not satisfied with the explanation, instead of conducting a domestic enquiry, passed orders imposing a major penalty of withholding annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent which was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the major punishment was imposed without conducting a domestic enquiry, in view of the judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation, however, sought to sustain the order. Heard both sides and considered the material on record. As the major punishment was imposed without conducting a regular departmental enquiry, the impugned order is prima facie unsustainable. However, as the punishment is imposed in the year 1998, this Court is not inclined to remit the matter to the second respondent for initiating fresh proceedings. But, this Court is inclined to modify the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority to the extent of confining the punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. It is made clear that the monetary benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to as a result of this order would be available to him only from the date of this order, but not for the period prior to the date of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ 27.07.2005 VGB