IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 12353 of 1999 Between: O. Karampuraiah S/o. Pichaiah R/o. 18-1-293, Bhawani Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chairman & Managing Director Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (Government of Andhra Pradesh Undertaking)- Parishrama Bhawan, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad - 500 004. 2 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (Govt of Andhra Pradesh Undertaking) Rep. by its Board of Directors, Parishrama Bhawan, 6th Floor, 5-9-58 1/4b, Fateh Maidab Road, Hyderabad-500 04. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the First Respondent in imposing the punishment of stoppage of Two incrementws with cumulative effect by proceedings No. 16169/PW/APIIC/E1/97, dated 13-05-98 and confirmation order which communicated through proceedings No. 16169/PW/APIIC/E1/97, dated 15-03-99 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the next higher post by paying the increments as usual and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RAMABHOOPAL REDDY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is no more res integra and is well settled. When the disciplinary authority intends to impose punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, it amounts to major punishment. Unless and until, a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the employee is conducted, such punishments cannot be imposed. In this case, admittedly, the disciplinary authority has imposed major punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect without conducting any detailed enquiry into the matter. Only after issuing a show cause notice and calling explanation of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the first respondent as confirmed by the second respondent is set aside. However, instead of remanding the matter for reconsideration, I deem it appropriate to hold that if any financial benefits that may accrue to the petitioner flowing from this order shall be reckoned only from 1.4.2008. The petitioner is not entitled for any difference of wages etc. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 14.3.2008 DA