IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.4516 of 2011 Between: C.G. Rao … Petitioner and APSRTC., Rep.by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.4516 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the office order dated 18.05.2010, passed by the 3rd respondent in imposing major punishment of deferment of petitioner’s annual increment for a period of two years which shall have its effect on future increments without issuing show cause notice, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Driver in the respondent’s Corporation. While so, he was issued charge sheet dated 20.10.2009 alleging that he was responsible for causing accident while driving the bus. Denying the allegations, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, preliminary enquiry was conducted and submitted reported dated 12.01.2010 to the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager, holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved. Based on the said report, the 3rd respondent passed impugned order dated 18.05.2010, imposing major punishment of deferring annual increment for a period of two years, which shall be have its effect on future increments. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner stated to have filed an appeal dated 16.07.2010 and the same is pending. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3rd respondent issued the impugned order dated 18.05.2010 without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Having been aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, and the 2nd respondent considered the plea of the petitioner and passed proceedings dated 04.06.2011, wherein it is observed that the petitioner has deferred his annual increment for a period of two years which shall not have effect of postponing of future increments. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority modified the order passed by the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager, vide order dated 18.05.2010, and the modified proceedings have not been given effect. Therefore, he requested this Court to direct the respondents to give effect the modified proceedings. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel would submit that the appellate authority made an observation, which gives an impression in reading the proceedings dated 04.06.2011 that he has modified the order passed by the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager, but ultimately the appellate authority rejected the appeal. Therefore, the matter may be remitted to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration and to pass appropriate orders in the matter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued order dated 18.05.2010, which reads as under: “After giving careful consideration to the explanation submitted by you in reply to the Charge Sheet, and the entire evidences available on record together with the circumstances of the case, I have come to the final conclusion that the charges framed against you stand proved, for which the penalty of withholding your annual increment which falls next due be deferred for a period of “TWO (2) YEARS” which shall have effect of postponing your future increments, is fit and proper to be imposed on you. I therefore, hereby order that your annual increment which falls due be deferred for a period of “TWO (2) YEARS” which shall have effect of postponing your future increments. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of deferment of two annual increments, which shall have effect of postponing future increments. Now it is to be looked into what the 2nd respondent passed the proceedings dated 04.06.2011, which reads as under: “After through perusal of entire evidences available on record, together with the circumstances of the case, the DM/ACPT has deferred his Annual Increment for a period of Two (2) Years, which shall not have effect of postponing of future increments. Aggrieved by the orders, Sri C.G.Rao, E.150127, Driver of Achampet has preferred an appeal against the Final Orders issued by the DM/ACPT, requesting to considered his case. Perused the case along with available records. It is observed that the appellant while performing duty on route Srisailam – Achampet dashed the vehicle with the animals crossing the road. The appellant in his appeal has submitted that the vehicle had brake problem cannot be accepted since there is no material evidence to prove the poor vehicle condition. It was his responsibility to check the vehicle condition before starting of duty. If the vehicle really had the brake problem, it would have not stopped after dashing to the vehicle. The contention of the driver shows that he just seems to escape from the punishment. He should have concern for the animals which were crossing the road. Had he applied the brake on time, the accident would have been averted, thereby the huge compensation may not have been paid by the Corporation. I opine that the driver has failed to anticipate the movement of animal and dashed to the Vehicles. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the orders passed by DM/ACPT and hence, the appeal is REJECTED. The review appeal on these proceedings lies with the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar which may be preferred within Two (2) months from the date of receipt of these proceedings. Acknowledge receipt.” From a perusal of the above proceedings, obviously it is giving an impression that the 2nd respondent modified the final order dated 18.05.2010, passed by the 3rd respondent, but eventually, the 2nd respondent categorically mentioned that the appeal is rejected. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the 2nd respondent. In that view of the matter, the proceedings dated 04.06.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, is set aside and remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass afresh orders, in accordance with law, duly serving notice on the petitioner, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 27.12.2011 LSK