IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8845 of 2008 Between: K. Umamaheswara Rao S/o. Ankamma 24-1-596, Rajavari Street, Mookpet, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Giddaluru Depot, Prakasam District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Markapurma, Prakasam District. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Prakasam Region, Ongole. 4 Executive Director (K&N), APSRTC, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction especially in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to proceedings No.P1/255(6)/04-GDLR dt. 12.01.2005 of Respondent No.1 and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Venkata Ramaiah Karumuri Counsel for the Respondents: C.Prakash Reddy(SC for APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Manager (Personnel) in Nellore Depot-II of A.P.S.R.T.C. A charge sheet was issued to him on 18.08.2004 alleging that on account of his lapses, an employee continued beyond the age of superannuation. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to supply certain documents to enable him to submit explanation. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.11.2004. Similar request was made by the petitioner on 09.12.2004. Through his order, dated 12.01.2005, the first respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for two years with cumulative effect. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner submits that stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty as held by the Supreme Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL v STATE OF PUNJAB[1] and that the same was imposed against him without conducting departmental enquiry. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the service regulations enable the imposition of such penalty without conducting any enquiry. In Kulwanth Singh’s case, the Supreme Court held that the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it can be imposed only after conducting departmental enquiry. Subsequently, it was clarified that if the service regulations themselves classify such a punishment as minor penalty, the necessity to conduct departmental enquiry does not exist. The service regulations of the Corporation do not classify the deferment of increment with cumulative effect as a minor penalty. On this short ground, the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents to take further steps, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] 1990(1) LLJ 635