IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1133 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/11/2006 in WP NO : 12162 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Chief Engineer, A.P.S.E.B., Nellore Zone, Nellore (presently redesignated as The Chief Engineer, Tirupathi Zone, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited, Tirupathi) and two others ... APPELLANTS AND M. Daniel Babu ... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: Sri G. Vidyasagar Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Sudhir Kumar The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Admit. At the request of the learned advocates, the appeal is finally heard today. 2. It is not disputed that the respondent – employee was found guilty, but looking to the fact that substantial time had passed, the learned single Judge took a lenient view and directed reinstatement of the respondent – employee into service without back wages. It cannot be disputed that by not paying back wages, the respondent – employee has not been punished. Non-payment of back wages is not a punishment. 3. Looking to the facts of the case, it was suggested to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that a minor punishment be inflicted upon the respondent and the learned advocate appearing for the respondent had also agreed to accept such a punishment. 4. In the circumstances, it has been stated by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants that one increment without future effect shall be stopped by way of punishment and the said punishment has been accepted by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent – employee. 5. The order of the learned single Judge is modified to the above effect and the appellants are permitted to inflict upon the respondent the punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect. Appropriate orders shall be passed as soon as possible and effect shall be given to the said order at an early date. 6. Needless to say that the back wages shall not be paid, as directed by the learned single Judge. 7. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel to the disposal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2352 of 2009 filed by the appellants for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th October, 2009 ks