THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 5032 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short `APSRTC’) and he is attached to Suryapet Depot alleging certain cash and ticket irregularities said to have been committed by him on 19.3.2006 while conducting a bus belonging to APSRTC, the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry which resulted in an order passed by the Depot Manager imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal there against to the Divisional Manager, Suryapet, who passed orders on 18.10.2006 modifying the punishment imposed by the Depot Manager, as deferment of increment for a period of one year which will have effect on his future increments. In other words, the Divisional Manager while reducing the withholding of period of annual grade increment to one year has converted the same to that of cumulative effect. Then the writ petitioner carried the matter to the revisional authority viz., the Regional Manager, Nalgonda confirmed the orders passed by the Divisional Manager through his orders dated 30.6.2008. Hence, the present writ petition has been instituted. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Narasimha Goud that stoppage of annual grade increment for a period of one year would amount to imposing the punishment in terms of impacting the petitioner with loss of money for a period of one year only. In other words, his pay will not get increased by addition of the annual grade increment for a period of one year. As soon as this period of one year expires the annual grade increment which was withheld will get revived. In contrast, if the increment has been withheld with cumulative effect, he will never be earning the increment during the running time scale of pay and that will also naturally have an impact upon his terminal benefits. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, draws my attention to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in MP State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd v. Jahan Khan[1], wherein the Supreme Court has pointed out that “withholding of increments with cumulative effect is to be treated as a major penalty because it has a perpetual effect on the entire tenure of the service of the employee.” In this view of the matter, when the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has been confronted as to how such a major punishment can be imposed by the appellate/revisional authorities, without even putting the employee concerned on notice, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that such an action is impermissible, in principle, if the Regulations do list out such a punishment as a major penalty. But, however, the learned Standing Counsel tried to justify the action of the appellate authority by pointing out that the regulations of the APSRTC Employees CCA Regulations do not make a clear cut distinction between imposition of punishment with and without cumulative effect and hence the appellate authority has to independently apply his mind and come to a conclusion as to whether that part of the proven misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner would justify imposition of punishment of deferment of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect or not ? I am not afraid that this contention canvassed by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. Firstly, even if the ASPRTC Employees CCA Regulations do not make a distinction in so many words and categorically between imposition of punishment of withholding of an annual grade increment with or without cumulative effect, but, nonetheless, the impact in the latter set of cases where the annual grade increment is withheld with cumulative effect is far graver. It makes the employee miss out one increment for the rest of the service tenure. In effect, the employee concerned would have missed out permanently to earn one annual grade increment and consequently it will also impact the terminal benefits which he would be entitled to receive. Hence, such a punishment is considered to have perpetual effect upon an employee. In contrast thereto, if an annual grade increment has been withheld for one year, without cumulative effect, it will have a very limited impact. To illustrate this point, if an annual grade increment liable to be sanctioned to an employee is supposed to be Rs.100/-, by withholding the same, the employee will be denied to have a raise in his pay from the previous slab to the next slab by adding Rs.100/- to his pay for a period of 12 months. The net loss will be 12 months x Rs.100/- which will be working out to Rs.1200/- whereas if this increment were to be withheld with cumulative effect, he will continue to suffer losing this incremental rise in his pay even for subsequent period. Therefore, the action of the appellate authority in modifying the punishment imposed by the Depot Manager, Siddipet, of withholding one annual grade increment for a period of two years to that of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect amounts to enhancing the punishment. While the appellate authority or the revisional authority are vested with the power to enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, if the material on record warrants imposition of a higher punishment. But, nonetheless, it is fundamental that the appellate or revisional authority must comply with the principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned as to why the punishment be enhanced. His explanation should be considered on it’s merits. It is elementary principle of law that no person should be condemned unheard. By enhancing the punishment, the appellate authority is impacting adversely the interests of the employee. Therefore, the Divisional Manager, Siddipet, ought not to have enhanced the punishment without putting the writ petitioner on notice and assigning reasons for such an enhancement. There are no such reasons assigned by the appellate authority. It is conceded, as a fact, that the appellate authority has not put the writ petitioner on notice prior to passing the orders by him. Therefore, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the appellate authority by setting aside the orders passed by him on 18.10.2006 as confirmed by the Regional Manager on 30.6.2008. At this stage, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner appealed to shorten the agony of the writ petitioner inasmuch as nearly four years have already elapsed from the time the Depot Manager imposed the punishment on him and because of the controversy involved, the writ petitioner is suffering a great deal. Learned Counsel Sri Narasimha Goud suggests that the writ petitioner would be happy and contended if the order of the appellate authority is modified to that of withholding of annual grade increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. In response thereto, the learned Standing Counsel is fair enough to submit that in the given circumstances, to cut down further possible rounds of litigation, the Court may substitute the punishment suitably modifying the orders of the appellate authority so that the same can be brought in conformity with the APSRTC Employees CCA Regulations. Acceding to the request made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and more with a view to draw to a close the controversy between the employee and the employer, I modify the orders passed by the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Siddipet, on 18.10.2006 by deleting the following expressions therefrom: “which shall have effect on his future increments”. After deleting the aforementioned words, what remains is the punishment of deferment of one increment for a period of one year. Therefore, to the extent of deleting the words “which shall have effect on his future increments” from the order dated 18.10.2006 of the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Siddipet, the rest of the order passed by him is confirmed. To the same effect will be the modification of the orders passed by the Regional Manager on 30.6.2008. Therefore, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated supra. It is needless to observe that the respondents will take appropriate necessary action for releasing the annual grade increments which are otherwise liable to be released to the writ petitioner after the expiry of the 12 month period commencing from 21.6.2006. The same may be completed and arrears if any payable to the writ petitioner be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated supra. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 30th August 2010 [1] (2007) 10 SCC 88