HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32057 of 2010 Date: December 21, 2010 Between: Ch. Krishna … Petitioner And 1. APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32057 of 2010 ORDER: The writ petitioner, working as a driver with the respondent State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth ‘the Corporation’), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in view of his involvement in an accident causing loss and damage to the Corporation. He was punished by the Depot Manager with imposition of punishment of deferment of two increments with cumulative effect. When he carried the matter in appeal before the Divisional Manager, Gudur, he passed orders on 16.6.2003 rejecting the appeal. When the writ petitioner carried the matter by way of review before the Regional Manager, Nellore, the said Regional Manager passed orders on 10.10.2005 reducing the punishment to that of deferment of one annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, taking a lenient view of the matter. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that deferment of annual grade increments with cumulative effect is nothing but imposition of major punishment, which can be accomplished only after following the procedure prescribed under CCA Regulations governing the service. Whereas, in the instant case without following any such procedure and without conducting any such inquiry, the Depot Manager, the disciplinary authority, has straight away proceeded to impose the major punishment and hence it is illegal. The fact that the Regional Manager, Nellore, has extended sympathy and compassion to the cause of the writ petitioner would not cure the illegality inasmuch as the punishment is still a major punishment imposed and the same could not have been imposed without following the procedure in that respect. 3. I have heard Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel for the Corporation and with his consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage itself. 4. Inasmuch as in a batch of cases this Court has consistently pointed out that the respondent Corporation had to necessarily follow the procedure prescribed under CCA Rules for imposing major punishments and imposition of the punishment of withholding or deferment of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and hence the disciplinary authority should invariably notice the distinction between the procedure prescribed for imposition of minor punishments and major punishments, however, to cut the litigation short, this Court has devised a method of dissecting that portion of the punishment order which seeks to bring about cumulative effect to the punishment. If that portion of the order otherwise bad in law is dissected, the remaining portion of the order can be sustained. 5. In that view of the matter, the order of punishment as modified by the Regional Manager, Nellore, can be dissected by deleting that portion of the order which seeks to render punishment of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect. That would save the situation. 6. Hence, this writ petition is allowed duly modifying the order passed by the Regional Manager, Nellore on 10.10.2005 by substituting the punishment imposed on the petitioner as deferment of one annual increment without cumulative effect. However, the writ petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out of this modification inasmuch as he has preferred to approach this Court more than five years after the Regional manager has confirmed the orders of the appellate authority and for the sheer delay on the part of the writ petitioner, he is denied monetary benefits. 7. The writ petition otherwise stands allowed to the extent indicated supra. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: December 21, 2010. BSB