THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.22312 OF 1998 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 BETWEEN: D.V.PRASAD RAO .. PETITIONER AND THE SECRETARYAND CORRESPONDENT, B.V.M.AIDED HIGH SCHOOL (ENGLISH MEDIUM), RAMAKRISHNARAOPET, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DISTRICT AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.22312 OF 1998 O R D E R: The writ petition has been dismissed as against 6th respondent-school by the order of the court dated 2.4.2009. The order under challenge in this writ petition is the order passed by the District Educational Officer, E.G. at Kakinada dated 13.7.1998 in an appeal preferred by the petitioner on 12.5.1997. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that while he was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 6th respondent-school he was issued three memos to which he submitted a detailed explanation. The 1st respondent issued a charge sheet on 3.2.1997 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.3.1997. Thereafter, the respondents, without conducting an enquiry, imposed on the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 15.4.1997. On the ground that imposition of major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was contrary to Section 79 of A.P. Education Act for which the prior approval of the competent authority was required to be obtained the petitioner herein preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. Sri.K.Ramamohan Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, under section 79(1) of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, no teacher employed in a private institution can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, except after an enquiry, wherein he would be informed of the charges against him. According to the learned counsel no order of reduction in rank can be passed without the prior approval of such authority or Officer as is prescribed for different classes of private institutions. Learned counsel would submit that while stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was a minor penalty, when such punishment was imposed with cumulative effect it amounted to reduction in rank and that the said punishment cannot be imposed without an enquiry being conducted by the management of the school, and without obtaining prior approval as required under the proviso to Section 79(1) of A.P. Education Act. Learned counsel would rely on KALWANT SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1]. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Education would submit that the punishment of stoppage of two increments, even if it be with cumulative effect, does not require the prior approval of the competent authority under Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act in as much as it is not a punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank and that the order of the 2nd respondent confirming the order under appeal was valid and did not necessitate interference. In KALWANT SINGH GILL1, the Supreme Court held that, while withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without cumulative effect certainly fell within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules, when the penalty imposed was of withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty forever in his upward march of earning higher scales of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and, on expiry of two years, the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The Supreme Court held that the insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, was that the employee was reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in KALWANT SINGH GILL1 imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect amounts to reduction in the rank for a period of two years and falls within the enumerated punishments in Section 79(1) of the A.P. Education Act, necessitated prior approval of the competent authority. As the writ petition has already been dismissed as against 6th respondent, and no relief can be granted against them in this writ petition, I consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the appellate authority i.e. the District Educational Officer, Kakinada, dated 13.7.1998 and direct him to examine the appeal afresh and pass orders, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances without costs. 17th February 2010. ( RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J ) TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.22312 OF 1998 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 [1] 1996(3) SLJ 135