IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6589 of 2000 Between: D.B. Rao, S/o.Venkanna, Vendra Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Regional Manager Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., O/o Regional Manager, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Depot Manager Bhimavaram Depot, West Godavari 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 may be pleased to issue an Order or direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in imposing the major penalty of deferment of increments for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect vide order in Proc. No. 02/62(4)/98-BVRM, dt. 3/4/98 which was modified by the 2nd Respondent herein Vide proc. No. Steno./19(62)/98-DY.DTM-WG dt. 23/12/98 to the extent of 1 year which was confirmed by Respondent 1 in Proc No. Steno/675(54)/99-RM:WG dt. 21/12/99 as illegal, arbitrary as the same was passed without holding any departmental enquiry, which is contrary to the Apex Court ruling in the case of Kulwanth Sing Gill Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1990(1) LLJ 635 and contrary to the circulars issued by the Corporation and against to the principles of Natural Justice and as such liable to set aside in the interest with a consequential directions to the Respondents herein to pay the arrears of differed increments w.e.f., 3-4-98 forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.M. Subhan Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. C. Prakash Reddy (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner, a conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 03-04-1998 passed by the third respondent, imposing on him a major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner was appointed as conductor in the APSRTC in the year 1985. While he was working at Bhimavaram depot and conducting bus bearing No.AEZ-4604 on 10-01-1998 on the route Bhimavaram to Nelapogula at stage No.13, a check was exercised by the checking officials and they found certain cash and ticket irregularities. Basing on the report of the checking officials, a charge sheet dated 28-02-1998 was issued to the petitioner framing three charges. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge sheet on 24-03-1998. Dissatisfied with the said explanation, the disciplinary authority, considering the evidence on record together with the said explanation, came to a conclusion that the petitioner is liable for the charges and since he had already confessed the irregularities, there was no need to conduct an enquiry and thereby passed the impugned order dated 03-04-1998 imposing on him a penalty of withholding of annual increments, for a period of two years, which shall have the effect of postponement of future increments. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 26-06-1998 before the second respondent- appellate authority, who by order dated 23-12-1998, modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority to that of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a review before the reviewing authority, who by his order dated 21-12-1999 rejected the same. 3. The impugned order is mainly questioned on the ground that though the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect is ordered, but the said order is not preceeded by any enquiry as contemplated under Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year with effect on future increments will amount to reduction in the scale, the same is a major punishment and, as such, the respondents ought not to have imposed such penalty without conducting any enquiry. In support of the case of the petitioner, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwanth Sing Gill V. State of Punjab[1]. 4. The Law Officer of the APSRTC has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that as much as the petitioner has confessed the irregularity committed by him, there was no need to conduct any enquiry on the charges framed against him. 5. When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, it is fairly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that, in para-6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that as the petitioner confessed the misconduct, there was no need of conducting any enquiry. However, now, it is submitted that in response to the charge sheet the petitioner filed explanation denying the charges framed against him. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwanth Sing Gill (1 supra), has held that the punishment of deferring an increment with the effect on future increments will result in reduction in pay and the same amounts to major punishment. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the effect of such punishment, has held that it will amount to reduction in pay, which comes under the provisions contained in Regulation 8(1)(vii) of the Regulations. If the punishment imposed is to be treated as the one under Regulation 8(1) (vii), the said penalty cannot be imposed unless the petitioner is given 2nd show cause notice in terms of the provisions contained in Regulation 12(1) and (2) of the Regulations. In view of the said judgment, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the present case is a minor penalty so as to pass the impugned order without conducting any enquiry. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the impugned order imposing punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is not preceeded by any enquiry. Though in normal course the matter is to be remitted to the authorities for re-consideration, but taking into account the fact that the impugned order is passed by the disciplinary authority as early as on 03-04-1998 and the matter has been pending from the last about 11 years before one forum or the other, to put quietus to the litigation, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met by modifying the punishment imposed by the appellate authority to the following effect. 7. The punishment imposed by the appellate authority, as confirmed by the reviewing authority, is modified to that of punishment of stoppage of one increment without effect on future increments. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the light of the above modification, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. February 25, 2009 MRR [1] 1990 (1) LLJ 635