IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5712 of 2005 Between: M.A.Hakeem, E.280519, Conductor, Mahaboobnagar Depot, S/o. Ibrahim R/o.Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The APSRTC rep. by its Regional Manager Mahaboobnagar Region at Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar 3 The APSRTC rep. by its Depot Manager Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents herein in imposing the punishment of differment of annual increment for a period of 1 year with cumulative effect without holding any departmental enquiry vide Proc.No.02/62(71)93/SDNR Dt.5.5.95 as illegal, unjust contrary to well established principles of law and as such liable to be set aside by further directing the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner by adding the differred increment w.e.f 5.5.1995 and to pay the arrears forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court at the admission stage made the following O R D E R: The petitioner was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. While so, the respondent-Corporaiton issued charge sheet alleging cash and ticket irregularities. After receiving explanation of the petitioner, final orders were passed on 05.05.1995 imposing the punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner questioned the order on the ground that though there is reduction of annual increment, with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the respondent passed the impugned order without conducting any enquiry as required under the rules. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. Sate of Punjab wherein the Supreme Court held that since the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major punishment, the order cannot be sustained without enquiry. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to declare that the order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. The petitioner after receiving the adverse orders slept over the matter for a period of 12 years. There are latches on his part in asserting his right regarding this issue. Though the impugned order is liable to be set aside on account of long lapse of time, but in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill’s case (1 supra), I am of the view that it would be appropriate if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is treated as reduction of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner is not entitled for the difference of the amount, if any, by virtue of this order for the period from the date of the impugned order till the date of this order. But, he is entitled to get increments on notional calculation from the date of this order to which he is entitled, as he has been imposed penalty of reduction of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observation. No costs. ________________ (K.C.BHANU,J) Dt:21.03.2005 usd To 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar Region at Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL}