THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19996 OF 2005 Date:12.09.2005 Between: V.R.Ch.Rao. … Petitioner AND The APSRTC, rep., by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region at Visakhapatnam & another. … Respondents ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a conductor in APSRTC. While conducting the bus, he committed some cash and ticket irregularities. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet, dated 26.05.1992, directing him to explain as to why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for the alleged irregularities. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.06.1992. On consideration of the said explanation, the respondent passed proceedings, dated 17.06.1992, imposing penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year and further directed that it shall have the cumulative effect on the future increments. The petitioner challenges the same. The only point urged by Sri S.M. Subhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect without conducting departmental enquiry. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB and submits that stoppage of increment is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conducting departmental enquiry. Smt B.G. Uma Devi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the penalty imposed against the petitioner itself is minimal, if the irregularities on his part are taken into account. It is a matter of record that the respondents imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, on the allegation that the petitioner was negligent in performing his duties. Though a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed, no departmental enquiry was conducted. I n KULWANTH SINGH GILL’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conducting departmental enquiry. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside, leaving it open to the respondent to pass fresh orders. To avoid further delay and complication in the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order can be treated as the one for stoppage of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the proceedings, dated 17.06.1992, passed by the respondents shall be treated as the one for stoppage of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit that had accrued up to the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ 12.09.2005 ES