IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 730 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/04/2008 in WP NO : 7915 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: N. Appala Naidu, S/o. Late Satyanarayana R/o. Flat No. 401, White House, SBI Building, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Visakhaptanam rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director. 2 A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Visakhaptanam rep. by its Director (F & HRD). 3 Chief General Manager, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this appeal, the order dated 18-4-2008 passed in W.P.No. 7915 of 2008 has been challenged by the employee-original petitioner. The appellant-petitioner was working under the respondents. Because of certain proved misconduct, punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was inflicted upon him. The order of punishment was challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has confirmed the same by giving reasons in detail. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal, the appellant filed W.P.No. 7915 of 2008. His main contention before the learned Single Judge was that a major punishment has been inflicted upon him and the procedure, which was required to be followed for imposition of major punishment, had not been followed. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the said submission for the reason that, according to the Rules and Regulations of the respondent-employer, withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect and directing recovery from pay are classified as minor penalties and, therefore, it was not a case of major penalty. In the circumstances, procedure to be followed for the purpose of imposition of major penalty was not required to be followed in the case of the appellant For the aforestated reasons, the petition has been rejected. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant who has made similar submission before this Court. Looking to the nature of regulation, in our opinion, it was not necessary to follow procedure required to be followed for imposition of major punishment, as only a minor punishment had been imposed upon the appellant. It is pertinent to note that classification of punishment under the relevant regulation has not been challenged in the petition. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 25th July, 2008. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR