HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33220 of 2010 Date: December 29, 2010 Between: K. Sunil Kumar … Petitioner And 1. The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33220 of 2010 ORDER: Though in normal circumstances this Court would have been reluctant to entertain any lis concerning the validity of a proceeding dated 31st July 1992, but however, in view of the specific averment contained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, I consider it appropriate to entertain this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as a Conductor he has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the Depot Manager, Pulivendula, by his order dated 31st July 1992 imposed on him the punishment of withholding one annual grade increment for a period of one year, which shall have the effect of his future increment. In other words, one increment has been withheld with cumulative effect by the Depot Manager. 3. It is stated at the Bar that this Court entertaining a similar claim in W.P. No.11790 of 2005, rested upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Panjab[1] held that imposition of the punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect amounts to imposing of major punishment. The procedure prescribed under APSRTC Employees’ (CC&A) Rules requires an inquiry to be conducted before imposition of any major punishment. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted. The Depot Manager obviously lost sight of the distinction between withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment, which can be imposed after putting the employee concerned on notice and after considering his explanation. Whereas, withholding of one increment with cumulative effect being a major punishment requires an inquiry to be conducted in the presence of the employee. In view of blatant illegality, this Court felt that the order of punishment can be suitably modified by severing that portion of the order which sought to impose the punishment of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. By this severance rest of the order becomes sustainable. 4. The employee being a conductor of the APSRTC and in view of his specific undertaking given in the affidavit filed in support of the case that he will not be claiming any monetary benefit from the proposed deletion of the cumulative effect, but he will only be entitled for the terminal benefits, I consider it appropriate to allow this writ petition though 18 years period has elapsed since the order of punishment. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 31st July 1992 is modified to the extent of deleting the cumulative effect therefrom. Now, the order shall read as if one annual grade increment of the writ petitioner shall stand withheld without cumulative effect. Accordingly the pay of the writ petitioner will be re-fixed, but however the writ petitioner shall not be entitled for payment of any arrears on that count. The re-fixation will only enure for future and consequently it will only help him in his enhanced terminal benefits. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: December 29, 2010. BSB [1] 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504