IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 438 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 02/02/2009 in WP NO : 11941 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Nizamabad 3 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Nizamabad 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Bus Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District ..... APPELLANTS AND B.Ramulu S/o Bikya Jakrampally, Nizamabad District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2009 made in W.P. No.11941 of 1999 by a learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition to the extent of directing the 4th appellant herein to issue show cause notice to the respondent herein enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and pass appropriate orders giving opportunity of being heard to him, the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation filed this Writ Appeal. The respondent herein filed the above writ petition questioning the order dated 21.4.1994 passed by the fourth appellant herein imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increments with cumulative effect for a period of two years, which will have its effect on future increments apart from treating the period of suspension as not on duty, which was confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authorities by orders dated 29.2.1996 and 28.6.1997 respectively. It is case of the appellant – Corporation that the respondent was negligent in driving the Corporation bus bearing registration No.AAZ-7240 on 8.11.1993 and caused fatal accident on Kamareddy – Toompally Road at Gargul village and in culmination of the departmental enquiry, the respondent’s annual increments were deferred for a period of two years which will have its effect on his future increments and the period of suspension was also treated as not on duty. As can be seen from the averments, the case of the respondent is that he was not negligent and attributed negligence to the deceased himself. It is his further case that neither enquiry report was furnished to him nor an opportunity of being heard or show cause was provided before imposing the punishment, which is in violation of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. The learned Single Judge applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab(1991 Supp(1) SCC 504) has held that the punishment imposed on the respondent is covered under Regulation 8(vii) of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 and since the said penalty amounts to reduction in pay in the time scale, as such, the order impugned is in violation of Regulation 12(13), which mandates service of notice on the delinquent, calling for his explanation as to why the proposed penalty should not be imposed upon him. The learned Single Judge, in that view of the matter, eventually allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned order remanding the matter to the 4th appellant directing him to give a show cause notice to the respondent enclosing copy of the enquiry report and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, pass appropriate orders within a period of two months and further subjected the entitlement of increments that may accrue to the respondent and pursuant pay fixation thereto, to the final orders to be passed by the 4th appellant herein. Aggrieved thereby the present writ Appeal is preferred. Though a detailed counter was filed by the appellant Corporation before the learned Single Judge, the allegation of the respondent that he was not furnished a copy of the enquiry report is not refuted. The insidious effect of the punishment imposed on the respondent is reduction in pay in the time scale inasmuch as two increments earned by the respondent were cut off cumulatively. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in setting aside the impugned order and permitting the disciplinary authority to proceed with the matter from the stage of issuing the second show cause notice, enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. Having gone through the impugned order and the entire material available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar April 8, 2009 MAS