IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9313 of 2008 Between: P.A Mazeed S/o.Khasim Peera E.No.392304 R/o.Medikondur(V&M) Gutur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C rep.by its Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Guntur Region Guntur Guntur Dist 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C Rep.by its Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Sattenapally Bus Depot Guntur Dist .....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 a writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings No.02/95(90)/2001-SAP,dt.04-09-2001 is illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the 2nd respondent by granting increments to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.VEERASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9313 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a conductor in Piduguralla depot of APSRTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, alleging certain cash and ticket irregularities. On the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the 2nd respondent issued a final order-cum-show cause notice, dated 04.09.2001. In this, the punishment of stoppage of annual increment, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, was straight away imposed, and explanation was sought from the petitioner, as to why the period of suspension shall not be treated, as not on duty. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was rejected on 10.11.2001. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The 2nd respondent followed a peculiar procedure, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated, against the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted, and on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the 2nd respondent has, straight away, inflicted the punishment of stoppage of annual increment, for two years, with cumulative effect. However, he has chosen to issue a show cause notice, in relation to the period of suspension. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, it clearly emerges that the punishment of stoppage of increment, with cumulative effect, was inflicted on the petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice, after the departmental enquiry was conducted. When the 2nd respondent himself recognized the necessity to issue a show cause notice, as to how the period of suspension must be treated, as not on duty, he ought to have followed the same procedure, before inflicting the punishment of stoppage of increment, that too, with cumulative effect. Strictly speaking, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter needs to be remanded. However, having regard to the fact that nearly seven years have elapsed, this Court does not find it proper, to subject the petitioner to another set of proceedings. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, the punishment of stoppage of increment shall be treated, as the one without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit, up to the date of this order, on account of the modification of the punishment. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 25.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9313 of 2008 Date: 25.04.2008 JSU