IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8714 of 2006 DATED: 26-4-2006 Between: B.Krishnaiah petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC Nalgonda region, Nalgonda district & others REspondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 8714 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order dated 10-11-1994 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The case of the petitioner is that he is employed as Conductor in the respondent corporation. While so, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 8.3.1994 alleging that he is responsible for the accident of bus bearing No. AP 9Z 4425 at Haliya near Nagarjuna Sagar. The petitioner submitted his explanation and denying the alleged charge. However, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, and without conducting any enquiry, the impugned final orders were passed imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in imposing the major punishment without conducting a departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that punishment of deferment of increments for a period of one year with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under the APSRTC Employees’ (CC & A) Regulations. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 20609 of 1999 dated 7.12.2005 which is in a similar background of facts and circumstances. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation. Both counsel submitted that the matter is squarely covered by orders of this Court in W.P. No. 20609 of 1999. It is an admitted fact that the respondent imposed punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment. Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted though the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. The Apex Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL’S CASE (cited supra) held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed without conducting the departmental enquiry. Since the punishment of stoppage of annual increment was imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry violating the judgment of Apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside leaving it open to respondent to pass fresh orders. But to avoid further litigation in the matter, having regard to the nature of punishment, both the counsel agreed that instead of remitting the matter to the respondent for passing fresh orders, prayed that the impugned order be treated as one imposing stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. In view of the admitted stand taken by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned order dated 10.11.1994 passed by the respondent imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect, is modified to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out of this order, but shall be entitled to fixation of pay only. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 26-4-2006 GRK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8714 of 2006 DATED: 26-4-2006