IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 486 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/04/2006 in WP NO : 6169 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: C. Ramchandra Lal S/o Chotu Lal R/o Dabeelpura, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Executive Director, Hyderabad Zone, Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Hyderabad-12. 3 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Ranga Reddy Region, Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Hyderabad-12. 4 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Ranga Reddy Region, Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Hyderabad-12. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 486 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 13.04.2006 passed in W.P.No.6169 of 2002 by the learned single Judge. The appellant herein filed the above writ petition seeking to declare that the punishment inflicted by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No. RM (RR)/675(1)/99, dated 5.10.1999 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent by proceedings No.Peshi/675(15)/99-HZ, dated 15.6.2000, of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect and also treating the period of suspension as leave due, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner-appellant contends that while he was working as a Senior Assistant in APSRTC, he was subjected to enquiry on the ground that he failed to incorporate a clause relating to increase of rent by 10% and 15% in the 4th and 5th year on the licence fee in the Tender Schedule for lease of Canteen. A charge sheet dated 2.5.1998 was issued to him, for which, the petitioner-appellant submitted his explanation on 11.5.1998 and that having been dissatisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the 4th respondent passed orders dated 14.10.1998 imposing punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of suspension as leave due. Questioning the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the said appeal was allowed in part on 5.10.1999 by modifying the punishment imposed by the 4th respondent to that of postponement of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as leave due. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review petition before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent rejected review. Challenging the order of the appellate authority, the appellant filed the above writ petition and the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner-appellant. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is to be noticed that the punishment was imposed on the appellant by the disciplinary authority without furnishing him a copy of the enquiry report, and therefore, the appellant had no opportunity to putforth his case or to show any cause against the findings in the enquiry report. Though the appellant has been contending that the punishment imposed on him is not sustainable as he was denied reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the enquiry report, the primary as well as appellate authority rejected the said contention. Even before the learned single Judge, a submission on behalf of the appellant was made that non-furnishing of copies of statements of witnesses and enquiry report amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity, by placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in Muvvala Narasimha Vs. Works Manager APSRTC[1]. The learned single Judge placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Managing Director ECIL Vs. Karunakar[2] proceeded to hold that the said procedure is required to be followed only in case of major penalties and that the punishment proposed and imposed on the appellant is not one of the major punishments and therefore, the contention of the appellant that non-furnishing of copy of enquiry report deprives his opportunity of showing cause, has no significance. Accordingly, the learned single Judge did not interfere with the impugned punishment on the ground that due to the acts of omission of the appellant, litigation ensued between APSRTC and the bidder, with regard to the said canteen. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would certainly make a difference so far as the payment of the salary of the appellant and the terminal benefits also are affected. In the present case, it is evident that the punishment imposed is one with cumulative effect. In view of the background of the fact that the appellant had a long past service, postponement of one annual increment with cumulative effect would result in seriously affecting his terminal benefits. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant had already retired from service and on account of the dispute in question, his service benefits would substantially be affected. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that as per the APSRTC employees’ classification and regulations, the punishment imposed is not a major punishment and therefore, non- furnishing of copy of enquiry report, cannot be termed as unjustified. It is to be appreciated that in case of imposition of penalty of this nature, under service jurisprudence and even under the principles of natural justice has effect of depriving employee of a right to make his representation against the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the proposed punishment. If the contention of learned standing counsel is accepted, even if they have not furnished statements of witnesses and enquiry report, employee’s prejudice thereby is to be overlooked and punishment is to be sustained. A punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would deprive the employee, a substantive benefit permanently. Therefore, non-furnishing of the enquiry report depriving the rights of the appellant to put forth his case, would seriously affect and cause prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to modify the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. Subject to the above modification, the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Dated: 17th April, 2009 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO :486 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR) 17th April, 2009 [1] 1972 SLR 683 AP [2] AIR 1994 SC 1073