IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.109 of 2010 Between: Andhra Pradesh Sate Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Regional Manager and two others. … Petitioners And B.N.Rao. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.109 of 2010 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 27.02.2009 in W.P.No.20809 of 2000, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed, modifying the punishment to reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of two years, which shall have its effect on his future increments. The learned Single Judge found that as per Regulation 8(1) (vii) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short, “the Regulations”) the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay is a major punishment, whereas Regulation 12 of the Regulations deals with the procedure for imposing penalties and under Regulation 12(3) of the Regulations, it is obligatory on the employer to supply a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent employee before passing final orders. But in the case on hand, no such copy of the enquiry report has been supplied to the delinquent employee for making an effective representation to the Enquiry Officers’ report and punishment was imposed, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Further, keeping in view of the fact that the final orders of the disciplinary proceedings were passed more than 12 years back, remitting the matter to proceed from the stage of supplying the show cause notice, receiving the explanation and passing final orders, will result in prolonging the litigation further. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge by exercising the discretion modified the punishment as aforementioned to put a quietus to the litigation. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR 24th February 2010 lmv