THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2218 of 2009 DATED:10.02.2009 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam District …..Petitioner AND The Joint Secretary, APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, Gajuwaka Depot, Visakahapatnam District representing D. Appa Rao E456173, Driver and another ….Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2218 of 2009 ORDER: D. Apparao is the driver in the petitioner depot i.e., APSRTC, Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam District. On 09.03.1990, when the said Apparao was conducting the bus bearing No. AEZ 5160 on the route Gajuwaka to Ganesh Nagar, a scooterist all of a sudden appeared on the road and the driver of the bus applied the breaks. In spite of his applying the breaks, the bus hit the scooterist and thereby, the scooterist as well as the pillion rider fell on the road. The pillion rider was shifted to K.G.H. Hospital. The driver was issued with a charge memo for his rash and negligent driving. The driver submitted an explanation to the charge memo. The petitioner imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the driver preferred an appeal and the appeal was ended in dismissal. In the criminal case, the driver was acquitted. The Joint Secretary, APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam District representing the driver-D.Apparao raised a dispute under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication. A reference was made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for adjudication of the dispute, which reads as hereunder:- “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam in awarding the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect on Sri D. Appa Rao, E-456173, Driver, Gajuwaka is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? The reference was taken on file by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam as I.D. No.26 of 2005. The petitioner/management filed counter. The learned Tribunal formulated the following point for consideration:- “Whether the punishment imposed upon the workman is justified?” The Tribunal considered the spot statement, which has been marked as Ex.M.O.4 and the preliminary enquiry report-Ex.M.7, and on thorough consideration of the other material brought on record, came to the conclusion that imposition of penalty of withholding increment with cumulative effect is not legal and proper since the same is not preceded by a regular departmental enquiry and accordingly, answered the reference in favour of the workman/D.Appa Rao. The said award is under challenge by the petitioner/management in this writ petition. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/management. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/management submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in answering the reference in favour of the workman and thus, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Indisputably, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major one. In case of imposition of major punishment, it must be preceded by a regular departmental enquiry. Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted by the petitioner/management before inflicting the punishment. The learned Tribunal considered this aspect and observed as hereunder:- “The learned counsel for the workman contended that there is no fault on the part of the workman while driving the bus and if the workman had not taken precautionary measures and not applied brakes the major accident would have been taken place. He also urged that as per the decision in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1990 (2) LLN 1019, the Apex Court took the view that imposing penalty of withholding increment with cumulative effect amounts to reduction in time scale of pay permanently during the rest of tenure of service of the employee and such a punishment can be imposed only after holding a regular enquiry as per the procedure. As can be seen from that decision, the Rules 5 and 6 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, which came up for consideration before their Lordships are quite analogous to Regulation No. 8 (7) of CCA Regulations of APSRTC and hence, imposing the withholding increment with cumulative effect amounts to major penalty, which cannot be imposed without conducting regular enquiry. For the same proposition, he also cited another decision reported in 1999 (2) ALT 109 between S.K. Masthan and Managing Director, APSRTC and others. He strenuously contended that the punishment imposed is quite excessive. In this case, admittedly no regular enquiry was conducted before imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment in view of the decisions cited above and such punishment cannot be imposed without conducting the regular enquiry.” The reasoning award by the learned Tribunal is based on the proposition laid down in S.K. Masthan and Managing Director, APSRTC and others (1999 (2) ALT 109). Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 10th February, 2009 bud