IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Noo.13454 of 2008 Between: L.Sriramulu S/o.Pentaiah Shadnagar Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Shadnagar Bus Depot, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in imposing a penalty of deferment of petitioner's annual increment for a period of two years which shall have effect on his future increments as bad, arbitrary, unjust and also against to the judgments of this Hon'ble Court and also the apex Court by setting aside the final order No.E1/2(5)/2005-SDNR, dt.26.05.2005 of the respondent herein and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. While driving the bus, he caused accident on 17.02.2005. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet directing him to explain as to why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for the said accident. The petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 28.04.2005. Thereafter, the respondent passed an order, dated 26.05.2005, imposing penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years and further directed that it shall have the cumulative effect on the future increments. The petitioner challenges the same. The only point urged by Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect without conducting departmental enquiry. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1] and submits that stoppage of increment is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conducting departmental enquiry. Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the penalty imposed against the petitioner itself is minimal, if the irregularities on his part are taken into account. It is a matter of record that the respondent imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, on the allegation that the petitioner was negligent in performing his duties. Though a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner; before the penalty was imposed, no departmental enquiry was conducted. I n KULWANTH SINGH GILL’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it cannot be imposed, except by conducting departmental enquiry. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the ordinary course of things, the impugned order needs to be set aside, leaving it open to the respondent to pass fresh orders. To avoid further delay and complication in the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order can be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the order, dated 26.05.2005, passed by the respondent shall be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit that had accrued up to the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.06.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} [1] 1990(1) LLJ 1635