IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5237 of 1999 Between: P.Ailaiah … Petitioner and Chairman, Deccan Grameena Bank, Head Office at 9-27/1, 1st Floor, Lalithanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5237 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in connection with the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 31.10.1997 and another order dated 01.12.1997 modifying the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent and imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments forever and to quash the same as illegal and without authority and consequently to direct the respondent to provide the petitioner with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears by sanctioning the increments stopped as a penalty imposed. Brief facts for filing the present writ petition by the petitioner are that while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager at Vangara Branch of Sree Sathavahana Grameena Bank, sponsored by the State Bank of Hyderabad, on the ground that he was responsible for certain irregularities i.e. he violated the norms of procedure while sanctioning and releasing the loans to the Integration Rural Development Programme barrowers, framed certain charges against him. Thereafter, enquiry has been conducted into the said charges and by order dated 08.11.1994 imposed the punishment of degradation to the starting basic pay in the incremental scale of Rs.2,100/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2,100-4220. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent and on 24.04.1995, the petitioner was informed that the Board of Directors/Appellate authority have examined his appeal and reduced the punishment to that of stoppage of two increments forever in stead of placing him at the starting basic pay of Rs.2,100/-. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.27391 of 1995 and this Court while disposing of the said writ petition, set aside the order dated 24.04.1995 on the ground that the said order was not a speaking order and the matter was remitted to the 2nd respondent for re-consideration and for issuance of speaking order and till such time, the original order was directed to be kept in abeyance. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, in the said writ petition, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 31.10.1997 stating that the members of the appellate authority, during their meeting held on 13.09.1997, after carefully and independently examining the entire record, revised and reduced the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. Having believed that the 2nd respondent did not comply with the order passed by this Court, in the said writ petition, the petitioner filed C.C. No.1708 of 1997 and upon direction given by this Court, the 2nd respondent again passed another detailed order dated 01.12.1997 with similar substance, which is also impugned in the present writ petition. The main ground that is raised in the present writ petition is that stoppage of two increments forever is not contemplated under clause (b) of Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 30 and the said clause contemplated only delaying the increments or promotion or stoppage of increments, but it does not contemplate stoppage of increments forever. Therefore, the punishment imposed is without authority or jurisdiction or in excess of the power conferred upon the respondents under the Regulations. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel, Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, appearing for the respondent bank, while placing a copy of the proceedings dated 02.02.2011, issued by the Chairman of the Deccan Grameena Bank, would submit that the head office of the bank has issued clarification in respect of stoppage of two increments forever is that “stoppage of (say 2) increments forever means that, the official attains the maximum pay in the pay scale 2 years later as compared to other officials in the same scale of pay since, the (2) increments following due in each year are stopped for a period of (2) years on account of penalty”. He further submitted that in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it was stated that the bank has not released the increments as per the punishment imposed by the appellate authority as clarified, in this regard, he submitted that the petitioner’s basic pay as on 08.11.1994 was Rs.3180/- and subsequently the bank has released increment Rs.120/- in the year 1995 and 1996. Therefore, the bank has been releasing the increments every year. It is also submitted that the basic pay of the petitioner as on date of punishment i.e. 08.11.1994 was Rs.3180/- and in view of stoppage of two increments his basic pay of Rs.3180/- has been continued up to 1997 (i.e. 2 years). Therefore, the petitioner was entitled for release of an increment of Rs.120/- in the year 1997 accordingly, his basic pay would be fixed at Rs.3300/- (i.e. Rs.3180/- + 120/-). Further, it is also submitted that the petitioner was advised to rectify the aspect of increments as per the order of punishment, which is by way of clarification order dated 02.02.2011 and the petitioner in his reply did not challenge the validity of the proceedings dated 02.02.2011 but only points out that his increments are not properly released. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. It is clear from the above that the punishment imposed by the originally authority and thereafter by the appellate authority was clarified vide proceedings dated 02.02.2011. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner as a disciplinary measure pursuant to the charges made against him and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, if any claim, with regard to improper release of increment, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereupon, within one month thereafter, the respondent bank is directed to consider and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 11.10.2011 LSK