HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21830 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the Rayadurg Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). In the year 2000, he was working in the Gooty Depot. Charge sheet, dated 05-07-2000, was issued alleging that he committed some irregularities. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Depot Manager, respondent herein, appointed an Enquiry Officer. In his report, the Enquiry Officer, held that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Taking the same into account, the respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed W.P. No.21062 of 2005 against the order of punishment. This Court allowed the writ petition through order, dated 10-11-2009, setting aside the punishment imposed against the petitioner on the ground that the Depot Manager did not issue show cause notice indicating the punishment. 2. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why the punishment of postponing annual increments of two years with cumulative effect be not imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 05-01-2006. Taking the same into account, the respondent passed an order, dated 16-01-2006, imposing the same penalty. The petitioner challenges the order, dated 16-01-2006. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. When identical punishment was imposed in the first instance, this Court interfered on the ground that the respondent did not issue show cause notice, since what was imposed against the petitioner was a major penalty. Such a show cause notice has since been issued and the punishment was imposed. The petitioner has not challenged the findings in the disciplinary proceedings. The freedom of a Labour Court is far wider in matters of this nature since it is vested with the jurisdiction under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to mould the relief even where the misconduct against an employee is proved. Further, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is totally disproportionate. At any rate, the petitioner approached this Court five years after the impugned order was passed. 5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 27, 2011. KTL