THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.17511 of 2006 Dated: 23.08.2006 Between: A.Anandam S/o A Chandraiah, 43 years Conductor, E.No.250814, APSRTC Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Mahaboob Nagar district, AP .... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District, A.P., .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.17511 of 2006 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 17.08.1992, imposing penalty of deferment of annual increment of the petitioner for a period of one year with cumulative effect, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in APSRTC. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 01.07.1992, alleging that while conducting the bus, he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities on 29.05.1992, and that he was required to submit the explanation, as to why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, for which he submitted explanation on 14.07.1992 denying the charges framed against him. The Respondent without conducting any regular departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity passed the impugned order imposing punishment of withholding the annual increment for a period of one year, which shall have the effect of postponing of future increments. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that stoppage of increments of an employee with cumulative effect is a major penalty, and the same cannot be imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under the APSRTC Employees’ (CC&A) Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab1”. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation vehemently opposed the said contention and submitted that the respondent, after careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record together with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has passed the impugned order, hence, no reasons to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the respondent imposed punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year, which shall have the effect of postponing the future increments, which is a major punishment. Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted though the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. The apex Court in “Kulwanth Singh Gill’s Case (1 supra) held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed without conducting the departmental enquiry. Since the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year was imposed without conducting regular departmental enquiry violating the judgment of the apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside leaving it open to the respondent to pass fresh orders, but to avoid further litigation in the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction. The impugned order dated 17.08.1992, passed by the respondent, imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year, which shall have the effect of postponing of future increments, is modified to that of stoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out of this order, but shall be entitled to fixation of pay only. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 23.08.2006 Bss/Nsr 1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504