THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10882 OF 2000 DATED 22ND JULY, 2010 BETWEEN K.R.Krishna, E.458182 … Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam. And Others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10882 OF 2000 ORDER: The petitioner, a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) assails the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect, visited on him by the proceedings dated 03.01.1995 passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Depot, confirmed in Appeal and thereafter in Review by proceedings dated 23.02.1996 and 29.06.1999 respectively. The petitioner while reversing the Bus bearing No.AP-9Z-1197 in Anakapalle Bus Stand on 19.06.1994 caused an accident whereby an old lady sustained injuries and died thereafter. Owing to this action on the part of the petitioner, the subject punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed. The same was confirmed in Appeal and thereafter in Review. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said punishment was visited upon him without following the due procedure and that he was not given any opportunity. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, fairly conceded that no notice or enquiry was held in the matter but sought to justify the same basing on Regulation 8(1)(iv) of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for brevity, ‘the Regulations of 1967’). Regulation 8 figuring in Part-IV of the Regulations of 1967 dealing with ‘Discipline – Penalties’ reads as under: “8. Penalties: (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon an employee namely:–– (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 of service 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, Regulation 12 of the Regulations of 1967 reads as under: “12. Procedure for imposing penalties: (1) .….. (2) 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. .…..” Though sub-clause (iv) of Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations of 1967 speaks of ‘withholding of increments’, it is not specified therein as to whether the same applies to ‘withholding of increments with cumulative effect’ also. However, under sub-clause (vii) thereof it is made clear that reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale or to a lower time-scale, whether in the same class of service or in another class, is a separate punishment and Regulation 12(2) demonstrates that such punishment cannot be imposed unless an enquiry is held in the matter. Once annual increments are withheld in a manner which would have the effect of postponing future increments, the same inevitably reduces the employee to a lower time-scale. Therefore, ‘withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect’ which has such consequence cannot be classified and equated with ‘withholding of annual increments simplicitor’. Therefore Regulation 8(1)(iv) must be interpreted to mean and include only ‘withholding of annual increments simplicitor’, i.e., without cumulative effect. If such withholding has the effect of postponing future increments it would fall within Regulation 8(1)(vii) and must necessarily be preceded by an enquiry as posited in Regulation 12(2) of the Regulations of 1967. Admittedly, in the present case, no enquiry was held in the matter before imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The order dated 03.01.1995 is therefore legally unsustainable and is accordingly set aside along with the Appellate and Review orders dated 23.02.1996 and 29.06.1999 respectively, confirming the same. It is for the APSRTC to consider as to whether the matter is grave enough for it to initiate action afresh in accordance with the due procedure as contemplated by the Regulations of 1967 for taking action against the petitioner at this stage. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 22ND JULY, 2010. VGSR/PGS