HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22924 OF 2010. DATED 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEEN P.Boopal Reddy …Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Devarakonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda District and anr. . …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22924 OF 2010. ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the APSRTC in the year 1987. An accident took place on 09.12.2006, when the petitioner was driving the Bus. After conducting departmental enquiry, the Depot Manager, the ﬁrst respondent, removed the petitioner from service through order dated 07.08.2007. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The appeal was allowed on 29.11.2007 and the order of removal was set aside, and punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages and deferment of increments for two years, with cumulative eﬀect; was imposed. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. It is brought to the notice of this Court that C.C.No. 815 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Hayathnagar, in which the petitioner was prosecuted for the oﬀence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, ended in acquittal on 04.03.2009. Heard Sri P.Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- Corporation. The Appellate Authority, the second respondent, made observations to the eﬀect that the petitioner had unblemished service of twenty years, and though it was found that the accident took place for the ﬁrst time in his entire service, due to negligence on his part, the order of removal from service was set aside, and the second respondent thought it fit to impose punishment of lesser intensity. The Regulations framed by the Corporation provide for imposition of punishments of diﬀerent categories. Reduction of pay, on one hand, deferment of increments, with or without cumulative eﬀect, on the other hand, are diﬀerent punishments. In the impugned order, the respondents imposed both the punishments. The said course is not permissible under law. Normally the matter has to go back to the ﬁrst respondent, or the petitioner has to avail other alternate remedy of review. However, having regard to the limited scope of the writ petition, it is felt that the punishment of postponement of increments, for a period of two years, with cumulative eﬀect, would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, modifying the order of the second respondent dated 29.11.2007 to the eﬀect that the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative eﬀect shall stand imposed, and the punishment of reduction of pay scale by two stages shall stand set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 17T H SEPTEMBER, 2010. Msnr.