HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 3695 OF 2004 DATED 30TH OCTOBER, 2009. BETWEEN N.R.V. Reddy …..Petitioner And Depot Manager,APSRTC, Hyderabad-II Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd. ….Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3695 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner, a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘the Corporation’), challenges the penalty of deferment of his increments for a period of two years, which would have an effect on his future increments, levied vide proceedings of the Depot Manager, Hyderabad-II Depot, the respondent, in Ref.No.M1/137(1)/96-H2 dated 27.01.1997, on the ground that the said punishment was imposed upon him without conducting an enquiry. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Driver in the Corporation in March, 1985 and that his services as such, were regularized in November, 1986. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 21.12.1996. The substance of the charge was that he had collected the Employees’ Union subscription from other employees outside the garage gate and had taken away the bench from the Controller Room without permission, evidencing disregard for the code of discipline; thereby constituting a misconduct under Regulation 28 of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet on 07.01.1997. Thereupon, the impugned proceedings dated 27.01.1997 were issued by the respondent imposing the punishment aforestated. A reading of the impugned proceedings clearly demonstrates that upon considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in response to the charge sheet and the evidence, said to have been available on record, the respondent came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved and accordingly imposed the punishment. Trite to state, the punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect cannot be categorized as a minor penalty. The Supreme Court in KULWANT SINGH GILL V/s. STATE OF PUNJAB[1] held that the punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect, being a major punishment, should not be imposed without complying with the formality of holding a regular enquiry. In the present case, it is manifest that no enquiry was conducted by the respondent before imposition of the punishment upon the petitioner. However, it is contended on behalf of the Corporation that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches as the petitioner challenged the impugned proceedings dated 27.01.1997 only in the year 2004. It is however relevant to note that the petitioner stated in his affidavit that he had preferred an appeal against the order of punishment, which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 23.06.1997 and that he had thereafter filed an application before the Labour Commissioner through Union leaders. In the meanwhile, he was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence, which constrained him to approach the Labour Court in I.D. No.636 of 2000 and it was only on 06.03.2003 that an Award was passed in the said I.D. setting aside his termination from service and granting him continuity of service. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a review application seeking review of the punishment imposed upon him under the proceedings dated 27.01.1997. The said review petition was dismissed only on 06.02.2004. These facts are put forth by the petitioner to explain the delay in the filing of the writ petition, which are prima facie found to be acceptable. Pertinent to note, the Corporation did not choose to file counter in this writ petition, rebutting the allegations and averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit. That being so, I am of the opinion that the delay, if any, on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court cannot be fatal to his seeking redressal of his grievance. The facts aforestated clearly demonstrate that the imposition of the punishment of withholding of two annual increments, which have an effect on his future increments, is clearly illegal as it was not preceded by a regular enquiry as mandated by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in KULWANT SINGH GILL. The impugned proceedings bearing No.M1/137(1)/96-H2 dated 27.01.1997 are therefore unsustainable in law and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 30TH OCTOBER, 2009 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3695 OF 2004 30TH OCTOBER, 2009 [1] 1991 SUPP (1) SCC 504