HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30246 of 2011 Dated 14-12-2011 Between: K.Bheemudu. …Petitioner. And: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30246 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-Corporation in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 30-7-2009 issued by the 4th respondent and proceedings dated 6-9-2011 issued by the 2nd respondent in imposing a major punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent-Corporation to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 30-7-2009 issued by the 4th respondent and proceedings dated 6-9-2011 issued by the 2nd respondent. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He was appointed as a Helper in 1991 at 4th respondent and subsequently, was promoted to Tyre Mechanic and was placed at Vemulawada. Since his appointment, he has been discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of his superiors. While so, he was issued a charge sheet alleging that he was not on duty, in drunken condition on 8-3-2009 gathered some on duty mechanical staff and closed the depot gate by provocating them to participate in Dharna by giving the slogans against Depot Manager. He submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges on 21-3- 2009. The respondent-Corporation, without considering his explanation, appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner was furnished with enquiry report dated 23-6-2009 seeking his comments for which he submitted the detailed comments on 11-7-2009. Without considering the same and without issuing show cause notice, the respondent-Corporation passed impugned order dated 30-7-2009 imposing a punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period “as not on duty” and consequently, petitioner was reinstated into service and posted at Vemulawada Depot and he has been working in the said depot for the present. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 3rd respondent-Corporation on 30-12-2009 and the same was rejected by an order dated 28-4-2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition to the 2nd respondent-Corporation on 25-5-2011 and the same was rejected by an order dated 6-9-2011. Having no other alternative, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition by approaching this Court. Heard the learned counsel. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent-Corporation in failing to issue show cause notice while imposing punishment is illegal and contrary to law. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court reported in KOTTAPATI JAYACHANDRA REDDY v. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC,KADIRI DEPOT, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AND OTHERS ([1]) wherein this Court observed as follows: “Therefore, it clearly emerges that the punishment of stoppage of increment, with cumulative effect, was inflicted on the petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice, after the departmental enquiry was conducted. When the first respondent himself recognized the necessity to issue a show-cause notice, as to how the period of suspension must be treated, as not on duty, he ought to have followed the same procedure, before inflecting the punishment of stoppage of increment, that too, with cumulative effect. Strictly speaking, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter needs to be remanded. However, having regard to the fact that nearly six years have elapsed, this Court does not find it proper, to subject the petitioner to another set of proceedings. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, the punishment of stoppage of increment shall be treated, as the one without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit, upto the date of this order, on account of the modification of the punishment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the office order dated 30-7-2009 issued by the 4th respondent-Depot Manager which reads as follows: “However, a lenient view is taken, your suspension is hereby raised and directed to the Regional Manager, Karimnagar for further posting orders. As a measure of punishment is decided defer your increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect duly treating the period of suspension as not on duty for all purposes. I, therefore, hereby order that your annual increment when next falls due as deferred for a period of two years which shall have effect on your future increment besides treating the period or your suspension as not on duty.” The facts and circumstances of the decision 1st cited and the present writ petition are similar in nature. In the present case on hand also, the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice while imposing punishment and as such, the action of the respondent- authorities is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. In this view of the matter and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the principles laid down in the decision 1st cited, this Court feels it fit and proper to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 30-7-2009 and 6-9-2011 in question and remand the matter to the 4th respondent-Corporation to pass appropriate orders after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. With the above observation, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 14-12-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30246 of 2011 Dated 14-12-2011 [1] 2005 (6) ALD 247