THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21499 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the Kamareddy Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in the year 2005, and an order of removal was passed on 27.07.2005 by the Depot Manager. He preferred an appeal against the order of removal. The appellate authority passed an order, dated 27.10.2005, setting aside the order of removal, but directing that the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, be imposed. The petitioner filed W.P.No.18679 of 2008 against the said order. The writ petition was partly allowed on 28.08.2008, modifying the order, dated 27.10.2005 to the effect that the punishment imposed therein shall be without cumulative effect. The respondents filed a writ appeal, being W.A.No.836 of 2009, against the said order. It was urged that the petitioner had availed the remedy of revision against the order of appeal, and even while that was pending, he had filed the writ petition. It was noticed that the 2nd respondent, who entertained the revision, passed an order dated 24.06.2006, reducing the punishment to the one of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. In W.A.No.86 of 2009, the petitioner herein sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, being W.P.No.18679 of 2008, with liberty to challenge the said order. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. It may be true that the petitioner availed the remedy of revision and even while that was pending, he had filed W.P.No.18679 of 2006. The writ petition was partly allowed and it is at a later stage that he came to know that the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 24.06.2006. This Court has already dealt with the merits of the matter to a substantial extent, in its order dated 28.08.2008 passed in the writ petition. Almost same reasons hold good for this also. The effort of this Court was to reduce the impact of the punishment. The cumulative effect would result in reduction of the emoluments for the rest of the career. Taking the same into account, it is directed that the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent through his order, dated 24.06.2006, stands modified to the one of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit up to the date of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:04.08.2011 GJ