IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3174 of 2008 Between: B.V.Subba rao S/o Ankalu R/o H. No. 4-9-44/2, Vijayanagar Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corportion Ltd., rep by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional manager, APSRTC., Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 3 the Depot Manager, APSRTC., Ibrahimpatnam Depot Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District ...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 an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of proceedings vide No. 02/95(1)/05-IBP dt 07-05- 2005 and No. Steno/19(72)/2005-DVM/HYD, dt 26-11-2005 issued by the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively and quash the same as arbitrary, unjust, illegal non application of mind perverse and amounting to unfair labour Practice besides violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay all incidental and consequential benefits and also direct the respondents to treat the suspension period as on duty and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this Case and to meet the ends of the justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3174 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the Ibrahimpatnam Depot of APSRTC. He was issued a charge memo, dated 20.1.2005, alleging that he failed to issue a ticket to a passenger, having collected Rs.4/- for the denomination of Rs.6/-, on seeing checking staff. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and thereafter, the 3rd respondent held departmental enquiry. In the enquiry report, dated 11.3.2004, the charge framed against the petitioner was held proved. Taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent passed order, dated 7.5.2005, imposing the punishment of postponement of increment, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, and directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as not on duty, for all purposes. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent herein. The appeal was partly allowed, directing that the postponement of increment shall be, for a period of one year, instead of two years, and in other aspects, the order passed by the 3rd respondent was upheld. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent did not issue any show-cause notice, after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, obviously under the impression that the punishment imposed by him is minor, in nature. He contends that stoppage of increment, with cumulative effect, is a major penalty, and the direction that the period of suspension be treated as not on duty, is equally harmful to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that even if the order of stoppage of increment, with cumulative affect, is to be treated as a major penalty, the fact remains that it was inflicted only after holding departmental enquiry, and there does not exist any infirmity in the proceedings. Whether a particular punishment is to be treated as major, or minor penalty, depends upon the purport of the Service Rules and Regulations. A given penalty may be classified as minor penalty, in certain organizations, and major penalty in other organizations. I n KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB, the Supreme Court held that stoppage of increment, with cumulative effect, is a major penalty. This was later on clarified to the effect that where the service regulations classify the same as minor penalty, it cannot be treated as a major one. The classification becomes relevant, in the context of the procedure to be followed, before the same is imposed. If it is treated as major penalty, a departmental enquiry is to be conducted and a show-cause notice to be issued, after the submission of the report by the enquiry officer, holding the employee guilty of the charge. In the Regulations of the APSRTC, the punishment of stoppage of increment, with cumulative effect, is not classified as minor penalty. It is no doubt true that the 3rd respondent has conducted departmental enquiry, before imposing the penalty against the petitioner. However, he did not feel the necessity of issuing a show-cause notice. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the period for which the increment was to be stopped was reduced, but the cumulative effect thereof, was not interfered with. Further, denial of continuity of service, or to bring about a break in service, by directing that the period of suspension shall be treated as not on duty, would also have a serious affect on the service of the petitioner. In the ordinary course, the matter should go back to the 3rd respondent, for fresh consideration and disposal. However, having regard to the fact that the 1st respondent himself did not feel the necessity of removing the petitioner, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if necessary corrective steps are ordered. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that stoppage of increment for a period of one year, as directed by the Appellate Authority, shall be without cumulative effect, and the period of suspension shall be treated as leave, to which the petitioner is entitled. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 30th April 2008 PAN