IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 19381 of 2000 Between: G.R. Krishna, E. 107530 S/o. Chandraiah R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. , Rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (U) O/o. R.M., A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakhapatnam. 3 The Depot Manager,x A.P.S.R.T.C., Maddilapalem Depot, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Waltair Depot, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein in imposing punishment of diﬀerment of increment for a period of 2 years which shall have the eﬀect of post-poning my further increments vide Proc.No. 02/104 (194) 87-WTR, Waltair dt. 6-6-1988, Which was conﬁrmed by the appellate authority vide Proc.No. PA/19(126)99-VSP(U) dt. 18-11- 1999 and as well as the Review Authority vide Proc.No. PA/19 (6)/2000-RM-VSP, dt. 2-5-2000 as illegal,unjust and arbitrary, against to the Principles of natural justice and as such liable to be set aside with a Consequential direction to pay the arrears of deferred increments w.e.f. 6-6-1988 forthwith and to pass such other order or orders this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation, has questioned the proceedings No.02/104(194)/87- WTR dated 06-06-1988 as conﬁrmed by the Appellate and Review Authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that on the ground that he involved in cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the bus bearing No.AAZ 3963 on route No.17 on 25-12-1987, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension and he was served with a charge sheet. Though he ﬁled explanation denying the charges, on the ground that the enquiry oﬃcer has recorded the ﬁndings against him, the impugned order was passed imposing him the punishment of withholding of two increments for a period of two years which shall have the eﬀect of postponing his future increments. In the same proceedings, he was asked to show cause why the period of his suspension shall not be treated as ‘not on duty’. The appeal and review ﬁled by the petitioner were rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that while it is open for the respondents to impose the punishment after issuing show cause notice based on the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer, but however, in the impugned proceedings, punishment is already imposed for stoppage of increments, while issuing show cause notice to show cause as to why the period of absence should not be treated as ‘not on duty’. As such, it is submitted that the punishment imposed in the impugned proceedings is contrary to the Regulations. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that even though the petitioner involved in a major misconduct, inasmuch as the disciplinary authority itself has imposed the lesser punishment disproportionate to the grave charges levelled against him, there are no grounds to interfere with the punishment awarded to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on KOTTAPATI JAYACHANDRA REDDY v. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, KADIRI DEPOT, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AND OTHERS [1]. I have gone through the said judgment. In a similar set of facts, this Court has modiﬁed the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative eﬀect as the one without cumulative eﬀect but without any monetary benefit up to the date of that order. In this case also it is not in dispute that after conclusion of the enquiry by the enquiry oﬃcer in the disciplinary proceedings, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner indicating the proposed punishment. The impugned order itself imposes the punishment of stoppage of two increments which shall have the eﬀect of postponing of his future increments and the show cause notice is limited to the extent of treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. In view of the admitted position that no show cause notice was issued after conclusion of the enquiry and before imposing the punishment, normally this matter has to be remitted back. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct that the punishment imposed on the petitioner for stoppage of two increments which shall have the eﬀect of postponing of his future increments be treated as the one without cumulative eﬀect. At the same time, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary beneﬁt, on account of the modification of the punishment. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. The punishment imposed by the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as conﬁrmed by the Appellate and Review authorities stands modiﬁed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. I am sure that the pay of the petitioner will be re-ﬁxed in accordance with the modiﬁed punishment imposed by this Court as expeditiously as possible. ---------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th September 2008 CVRK [1] 2005(6) ALD 247