THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.6670 OF 2008 DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur-II Depot, Guntur. … Petitioner And The Depot Secretary, APSRTC, National Mazdoor Union, Guntur-II Depot, Guntur, Rep. for G.V.Rao, Driver, Guntur District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.6670 OF 2008 O R D E R The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) assails the Award dated 20.02.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.260 of 2001. By the said Award, the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workman and set aside the punishment of withholding of annual grade increments for a period of two years with cumulative effective imposed upon him. The APSRTC was directed to restore to the workman all benefits with effect from the date of the reference, viz. 17.09.2001. The amount recovered from him was also directed to be repaid. The I.D. arose out of a reference made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue referred was: “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur-II Depot is justified in imposing the punishment of withholding annual grade increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs.1000/- towards damage charges on G.V.Rao, Driver?” G.V.Rao, the Driver concerned, was involved in an accident on 18.07.1995 when the bus driven by him dashed against another bus. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings but no enquiry was conducted into the matter. However, the punishment imposed upon him eventually was the withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Though the APSRTC specified ‘withholding of increments’ as a minor penalty under Regulation 8(1)(iv) of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, the penalty of reduction to a lower timescale or to a lower stage in a timescale under Regulation 8(1)(vii) is treated as a major penalty requiring prior enquiry to be held under Regulation 12(2) of the said Regulations. The Supreme Court in KULWANT SINGH GILL V/s. STATE OF PUNJAB[1], while dealing with a similar issue, held that irrespective of the title given to the punishment, once it has the effect of a major penalty, the procedure prescribed for imposition of such penalty must necessarily be followed. The observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are apposite: “(4) Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5 (iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the timescale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5 (v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the timescale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i. e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the timescale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his timescale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his timescale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. …” In the light of the aforestated Judgment, there can be no doubt that withholding of increments with cumulative effect would inevitably lead to reduction of the timescale and would therefore amount to a major penalty warranting holding of an enquiry. Admittedly, in the present case, no such enquiry was held. Further, the Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the Driver was not proved. The Labour Court accordingly granted the reliefs as detailed supra. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the cogent and well reasoned Award passed by the Labour Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 10TH DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR [1] 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 504