IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3667 OF 2011 Between: B. Srinivasa Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Parakasam Regiona, Ongole & another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3667 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing the Order No.PA/675(52)/2008-RM(0), dated 15.04.2009, in so far as imposing punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the Order No. PA/675(52)/2008-RM(0), dated 15.04.2009, issued by the first respondent. 2. The brief facts leading to file this Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed in the APSRTC Corporation as Conductor on casual basis on 13.04.1989 and posted to work at Giddalur Depot. Thereafter, his services were regularized and posted to Cheerala Depot. While he was working under the second respondent depot, a charge sheet, dated 28.10.2004, was issued alleging that he was refused to continue the service and caused inconvenience to the travelling public besides caused bad image on the corporation in the public. The petitioner was allowed to continue his service for a period of two years and ten months without conducting any enquiry on him. After the completion of two years and ten months, the first respondent passed final orders on 27.08.2007 imposing punishment of deferment annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Without conducting any enquiry, the second respondent passed final order No.01/227(6)/04-CRL, dated 27.08.2007, stating that the petitioner did not submit any explanation to the charge sheet, dated 28.10.2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Manager, Prakasam Region on 08.10.2007, but the same has been rejected by Proceedings Lr.No.STENO 19(191)/07- DCTM, dated 30.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the Review Petition to the first respondent on 08.04.2008 wherein the respondent passed orders in No.PA/675(52)/2008-RM(0), dated 15.04.1009, by modifying the final order of the second respondent and confirming the punishment of deferment of the annual increments of the petitioner for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted representation, dated 06.05.2009, to the first respondent requesting to reconsider his final order and set aside the entire punishment imposed by the second respondent and the same is pending till date and no orders are passed. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2, without furnishing copy of enquiry report and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, straight away issued the impugned proceedings imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the suspension period should not be treated as not on duty. He further submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 18299 of 2005, dated 05.09.2005. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation admitted the same. He, however, opposed the relief contending that after considering the entire material on record, the impugned order was passed, and no interference is called for therewith. 5. The issue raised in the present Writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court in W.P. 18299 of 2005, dated 05.09.2005. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: “Strictly speaking, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter needs to be remanded. However, having regard to the fact that nearly six years have elapsed, this Court does not find it proper, to subject the petitioner to another set of proceedings. Taking the totality of the circumstances, into account, the punishment of stoppage of increment shall be treated, as the one without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit, upto the date of this order, on account of the modification of the punishment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. Hence, following the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 18299 of 2005, dated 05.09.2005, the present Writ Petition is also disposed of with the following direction. 7. The impugned order, dated 15.04.2009, passed by respondent No.2, imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, is modified to that of stoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out of this order, but shall be entitled to fixation of pay only. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 9th June, 2011. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3667 OF 2011 7th June, 2011 KL