IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 7822 of 2005 Between: P.Veeraiah, S/o.Pitchaiah, R/o.Somaram (V), Kondapoor (P), Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal Region, Warangal District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal Division, Warangal District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobabad Depot, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings NO.E1/1 (74)/93 MSBD dt.22-4-94 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the proceedings proceeding No.DM/O.O.No.E1/1(74)/93 MSBD dt22-4-94 issued by the 3rd Respondent and pass such further other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court at the admission stage made the following : ORDER: Questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings NO.E1/1 (74)/93 MSBD dt.22-4-94, the present writ petition is filed. Mr. G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that without conducting any enquiry, major penalty has been imposed on the petitioner and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the penalty was imposed in the year 1994 and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. For certain irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner, a charge sheet dated 11-8-1993 was issued to him and he gave an explanation. As the explanation was not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority passed final orders on 22-4-1994 impossing a major penalty of postponement of annual increment for one year with cumulative effect. Imposing a major penalty without conducting regular departmental enquiry cannot be sustained under law. Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted in this case. Though it is a matter to be remitted back to the Disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested this court to modify the major penalty imposed by the third respondent to that of a minor penalty. As the alleged irregularities have taken place in the year 1994, at this point of time, it is not desirable to remit back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for conducting any regular departmental enquiry and further more, the petitioner has requested to impose a minor penalty. Therefore, the penalty can be modified in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the penalty of postponement of one annual increments with cumulative effect to that of postponement of one annual increment without cumulative effect. By virtue of this order petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits. In the circumstances, no costs. _____________________ K.C. Bhanu, J. 8th April 2005 js. To 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal Region, Warangal District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal Division, Warangal District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobabad Depot, Khammam District. 4 2 CD copies.