THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Writ Petition No.998 of 2007 Dated:19-01- 2007 Between: Mohd. Abdul Raheem Khan. …..PETITIONER AND The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and another. ….RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.No.998 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled assailing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Nalgonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda District, in proceedings No.p1/1(21)/05- NR3, dated 26-04-1995 by which the petitioner who is a Driver was imposed a major punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative eﬀect, without conducting any enquiry. The operative portion of the impugned order of the respondent reads thus: “I, therefore, hereby order that your annual increment which falls next due be postponed for a period of six months with/cumulative eﬀect on your future increments.” It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Conductor at 2nd respondent-Depot and the 2nd respondent issued a charge-sheet dated 31-03-1995 on the allegation of unauthorized absence to duty, for which the petitioner submitted explanation. It is the further case of the petitioner that proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Nalgonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda District, in proceedings No.p1/1(21)/05-NR3, dated 26-04- 1995 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative eﬀect is a major punishment and cannot be imposed without conducting departmental enquiry and such imposition is contrary to law and contrary to the Judgment of the Supreme court in Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [1], and due to such major punishment the petitioner is facing much financial problems as he is drawing less salary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23114 of 2005, dated 27-10-2005. Admittedly, the respondent without conducting departmental enquiry imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of six months, with cumulative eﬀect on the basis of the charges leveled against the petitioner which is a major penalty as is held by this Court in a similar matter in W.P.No.23114 of 2005, dated 27-10-2005 following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab. The operative portion of the judgment in W.P.No.23114 of 2005, dated 27-10-2005 reads thus: “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, without cumulative effect. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the order dated 16-11-1993, passed by the respondent, shall be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment, for a period of six months, without cumulative eﬀect, and that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary beneﬁts up to the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23114 of 2005, dated 27-10-2005 directing the respondents as under. The respondent is directed to treat the impugned order in proceedings No.p1/1(21)/05-NR3, dated 26-04-1995 as the one for stoppage of annual increment, for a period of six months without cumulative eﬀect, and that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefits up to the date of this order. No costs. ________________ (N.V. RAMANA, J.) Date:19-01-2007. GRK [1] 1990 (1) LLJ 635