IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 17698 of 2000 Between: Y.Rangareddy, S/o. Late Narayana Reddy, R/o. 5-8-111/10/D, Ashoknagar Colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Region, Rep by its Regional Manager, Nizamabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Rep by its Depot Manager, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for the records in respect of the Procgs.No. Peshi/402(203)/96-RM-NZB, dt. 5- 5-1997 and issue an appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the impugned proceedings in not granting the relief of restoration of deferred increments as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore and deferred increments alongwith the consequential beneﬁts in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, who was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation questioned the order passed in proceedings No.Peshi/402(203)/96-RM:NZB dated 05-05-1997 rejecting his review petition ﬁled under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short – ‘the Regulations’) framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. On the ground of misbehaviour with the Traffic Inspector on 21-12-1992, the petitioner was suspended from service on 26-12-1992 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by framing the following charges. “1. For having misbehaving with Sri Pochaiah, E.No.13404 TI-III in connection with the recommendation of your leave memo on 27-12-92 in front of AM(T) chamber and abused me with filty words which constitute misconduct under Regulation 28(VIII) of APSRTC employees conduct regulation, 1963. 2. For having insulted the traﬃc inspector in front of the public and forced him to recommend the leave threatening him with the words “NEEVU CHESTHAVA CHEYYAVA, NEEVU YENTHA” which constitute misconduct under regulation 28(VIII) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees conduct regulations, 1963.” Dissatisﬁed with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an enquiry oﬃcer and the enquiry oﬃcer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Based on the enquiry report, the respondent-Corporation, without issuing any show cause notice on the proposed punishment, passed ﬁnal orders dated 15-02-1993 imposing the punishment of deferment of increments for a period of one year which shall have its eﬀect on his future increments. The petitioner was unsuccessful before the appellate authority and so he approached the review authority by ﬁling a review petition. By the order impugned the review authority rejected his review petition. Hence, the writ petition. In this writ petition, the impugned order is mainly questioned on the ground that the punishment of deferment of increment for a period of one year which shall have its eﬀect on his future increments amounts to reduction of pay as such the authorities ought not to have passed any order without following the procedure contemplated under Regulation 8 of the Regulations. It is submitted that before inﬂiction of the said punishment, the petitioner was neither furnished with enquiry report nor any opportunity was given by way of a show cause notice on the punishment proposed to be inﬂicted on him and the same is in violation of the procedure contemplated under the Regulations. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments placed reliance on KULWANT SINGH GILL vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[1] in support of his contention that since the punishment of deferment of increments for a period of one year which shall have its eﬀect on his future increments amounts to reduction of pay it has to be treated as a major penalty. Precisely it is his case that after submission of the enquiry report by the enquiry oﬃcer and before passing of the ﬁnal order on 15-02-1993 imposing the punishment, no enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner by way of a show cause notice on the punishment proposed to be inﬂicted on him, as such the impugned order is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Regulations and also contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KULWANT SINGH GILL case (1 supra). Though the writ petition is of 2000, no counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled, but however, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Corporation that the judgment of Apex Court relied on by the petitioner in the case of KULWANT SINGH GILL case (1 supra) will not apply to the case on hand. It is also submitted that the punishment of withholding of increments prescribed under Regulation 8 of the Regulations is a minor penalty as per the procedure contemplated under Regulation 12(13) of the Regulations and placed reliance on EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK vs. K.C.ARYA[2] in support of his contention that withholding of increment with cumulative eﬀect is a minor penalty and contended that it is always open to the Corporation to pass such an order without any further show cause notice and so the punishment imposed on the petitioner is in conformity with the Regulations. Before considering the respective contentions of the learned counsel, I deem it appropriate to refer to certain provisions in the Regulations. As per Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations, the following penalties may be imposed on an employee of the Corporation for good and sufficient reasons. “(i) censure; (ii) withholding of the privilege of free passes or privilege ticket orders or both for travel on the railway or the bus services of the Corporation, as the case may be, in the case of employees to whom such privilege or privileges are admissible; (iii) ﬁne, in the case of persons for whom such penalty is permissible under these Regulations, vide sub-clause (3); (iv) withholding of increments; (v) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders; (vi) suspension, where a person has already been suspended under regulation 18 pending enquiry into his conduct, to the extent considered necessary by the authority imposing the penalty; (vii) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale, whether in the same class or in another class, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (viii) removal from the service of the Corporation which does not disqualify from future employment; (ix) dismissal from the service of the Corporation which ordinarily disqualiﬁes from future employment.” Further, the procedure for imposing of penalties is prescribed under Regulation 12 of the Regulations. Regulation 12(1) of the Regulations reads as under. “No order imposing any of the penalties speciﬁed in items (i) to (vi) of clause (I) of regulation 8 shall be passed except after— (a) the employee concerned is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which action is proposed is to be taken and is given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; and (b) such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the authority imposing the penalty. The record of proceeding in such cases shall include a copy of the intimation to the employee of the proposal to take action against him, a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him, his representation, if any, the ﬁndings arrived at on the allegation with reasons therefore and the orders passed on the case by the authority competent to impose the penalty.” Regulation 12(2) of the Regulations reads as under. “No order imposing on an employee any of the penalties speciﬁed in items (vii) (viii) and (ix) of clause (1) of regulation 8 shall be passed except after an enquiry is held as far as may be in the manner hereinafter provided.” Regulation 12(13) of the Regulations reads as under. “The authority competent to impose the penalty shall then determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the employee, and pass appropriate orders on the case. If the penalty proposed to be imposed is one of the penalties speciﬁed in items (vii) (viii) and (ix) of Regulation 8, he should be given an opportunity to show cause why the said penalty should not be imposed.” In the case on hand, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is deferment of increment for a period of one year which shall have its eﬀect on his future increments. While considering the question whether stoppage of two increments with cumulative eﬀect as per the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, is a major penalty, the Apex Court in the case of KULWANT SINGH GILL case (1 supra) held that the punishment of stoppage of increments which will have eﬀect on future increments amounts to reduction in time-sale. Applying the same analogy, the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the instant case certainly falls under Regulation 8(1)(vii) of the Regulations. Though withholding of increments simplicitor is classiﬁed under Regulation 8(1)(iv) of the Regulations as a minor punishment, when once such withholding of increments is given eﬀect to on future increments and pay, the same will become a major punishment and falls under Regulation 8(1) (vii) of the Regulations as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KULWANT SINGH GILL case (1 supra). Though the learned standing counsel for the Corporation placed reliance in the case of EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK case (2 supra), it would not render any assistance in support of his argument, because in that case the question whether withholding of an increment of pay with cumulative eﬀect would amount to a major penalty was considered and it was held that the withholding of the increment with cumulative eﬀect is a minor penalty as per the provisions of Syndicate Bank Oﬃcer-Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Since, admittedly, no enquiry report was furnished and no second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty and since the punishment imposed on the petitioner will amount to reduction in time- scale and since the charges levelled against the petitioner are held proved, the petitioner has to succeed partly and so I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by modifying the punishment imposed in the ﬁnal order dated 15- 02-1993. The punishment of deferment of increment for a period of one year which shall have its eﬀect on his future increments is modiﬁed and shall be read as stoppage of increment for a period of one year simplicitor without any eﬀect on his future increments and pay. The ﬁnal order dated 15-02-1993 passed by the disciplinary authority as conﬁrmed by the review authority by the order impugned is set aside to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed-in-part as indicated above. No order as to costs. Further, the respondent-Corporation is directed to re-ﬁx the scale of pay of the petitioner as per the above directions and pay the diﬀerence amount to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th October 2008 CVRK [1] 1990 II LLN 1019 [2] 1996-LLJ-2-727