THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31369 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, dated 27.07.2001, in imposing the punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. It is stated to have been confirmed by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.05.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty but, however, imposed such penalty without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced circular No.LO.1/99, dated 19.02.1999, issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director referring to Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations and the penalties that may be imposed upon an employee by the disciplinary authority and also referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1], wherein it was held that imposing punishment with cumulative effect would amount to a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed unless an enquiry is conducted and, therefore, instructed all disciplinary authorities not to impose the punishment of withholding the increment with cumulative effect until an enquiry as contemplated under CC&A Regulations is conducted. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and circular instructions, the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent confirmed by the appellate authority is illegal and unsustainable. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent imposed the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. It is also not disputed that the said punishment was imposed without conducting any regular enquiry. In the light of the circular instructions and also the judgment referred supra, such imposition of major penalty is illegal and unsustainable as it was not preceded by regular departmental enquiry. Strictly speaking the matter must go back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration and disposal. However, it is doubtful as to whether any evidence would be available at all for them to conduct enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 27.07.2001, are set aside. The respondents shall fix the pay scale of the petitioner on the basis of this order with effect from 01.01.2011 and the petitioner shall not be entitled to be paid any arrears of salary on account of that. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:14.12.2010. KH [1] 1991 (1) SCC 504