THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 21182 of 2011 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is working as a conductor in APSRTC. He was issued a charge memo alleging that during check of the bus being conducted by him on 29.05.2000, Rs.0.50 ps denomination tickets were not closed in the S.R. The petitioner had submitted his explanation. The same was taken into account and the 2nd respondent has passed impugned order dated 03.10.2000 imposing punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of one year which shall have effect on his future increments. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition on the ground that though, what was imposed is a major penalty, the respondents did not hold domestic enquiry. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Kulvant Singh Gill V.State Of Punjab[1] as well as a decision of this court in S.K.Masthan V.Managing Director.[2] 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition cannot be maintained since it is filed more than 9 years after passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 5. It is true that the Writ Petition is filed more than 9 years after passing the impugned order. In the normal course of things, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches. However, in the matter of rights of employees, the Hon’ble Supreme Court i n Gurumal Sing v. Principal, Government College of Education[3] has held that the belated challenge of the orders detrimental to the interests of the employees should not result in total denial of relief, and at the most they can be denied back wages. Therefore, the Writ Petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. 6. Through the impugned order the second respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. No departmental enquiry was conducted. From a perusal of the APSRTC Classification Control & Appeal Regulations, it is evident that the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect cannot be treated as a minor penalty. Therefore, the same could have been imposed only after conducting enquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulvant Singh Gill’s case (1 supra) held that major penalty cannot be imposed without conducting the departmental enquiry. In that view of the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. As a result of setting aside of the impugned order the matter has to be remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. However, having regard to the fact that the order was passed more than a decade ago, this Court feels it just and proper to treat the punishment against the petitioner, as the one for stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Since, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order after more than 9 years, it is held that he shall not be entitled for any back wages or arrears of pay, as a consequence of the modification of the punishment. The petitioner shall however be entitled for refixation of pay with prospective effect. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 28.07.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 21182 of 2011 28.07.2011 [1] 1990 (6) SLR 73 [2] 1999 (2) ALD 586 [3] 2001 SCC (L&S) 105