THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24334 of 2005 Date: 16.11.2005 Between: K.Ramaswamy. .. PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC and another. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in APSRTC. He was issued a Charge Sheet, while working as a Controller of Achampet Depot, dated 07.03.1991, on the allegation that he was unauthorisedly absent for certain period and that he was required to submit the explanation as to why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the same. On a consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 26.03.1991, imposing the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. The only point urged by Sri S.M.Subhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the 2nd respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect, without conducting departmental enquiry. He placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court i n 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. Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy, 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 lapse on his part is taken into account. It is a matter of record that the 2nd respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect on the basis of the charges levelled against him. Though the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed, no departmental enquiry was conducted. I n KULWANTH SINGH GILL’s case (1 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. However, the writ petition is filed at a very belated stage. Instead of either setting aside the impugned order or dismissing the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the penalty of stoppage of increment can be upheld, but its effect be treated as not cumulative. Since the petitioner filed the writ petition at a belated stage, he cannot be extended the benefit of the arrears. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the order, dated 26.03.1991, passed by the 2nd respondent shall be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefits up to the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 16.11.2005 Jsu