HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1442 of 2011 Date: February 01, 2011 Between: M.Y. Swamy. … Petitioner And 1. APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1442 of 2011 ORDER: The writ petitioner while working as a conductor has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry which resulted in an order of punishment passed by the Depot Manager on 19.11.1992 of withholding one annual grade increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. It is not in dispute that the Depot Manager, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District has only issued a notice to the writ petitioner and after considering his explanation, he has passed the orders on 19.11.1992 imposing the punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. 2. Stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect is construed as a major punishment in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Panjab[1]. When an increment is withheld with cumulative effect, it amounts to denying the benefit of one annual grade increment forever to the employee and consequently such punishment will also impact upon the terminal benefits receivable by such employees. Because of this everlasting effect on such an employee, withholding of annual grade increment with cumulative effect has come to be construed as a major punishment. 3. Under the APSRTC Employees’ (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations a different procedure is prescribed for imposition of major punishment. Only with regard to minor punishments, explanation of the employee concerned can be called for, examined and the issue can be decided. In the instant case, obviously the Depot Manager has mistaken the punishment of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect as a minor punishment. Whereas, it is now settled that it is a major punishment. In such an event the Depot Manager ought to have followed the proper procedure prescribed for imposition of major punishment which includes conducting of an enquiry in the presence of the employee and examining the witnesses in his presence duly affording him an opportunity to cross-examine them and also secure filing of such documents which he can prays for his defence. 4. In normal circumstances, I would not have entertained this writ petition inasmuch as the order of the Depot Manager was passed as long back as on 19.11.1992. However, this Court taking an extreme compassionate view of the matter has passed several orders in case of several employees of this nature. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn my attention to one such judgment rendered by me on 29th December 2010 in W.P. No.33220 of 2010. 5. This Court has adopted the method of severing that portion of the order passed by the Depot Manager, which is otherwise not sustainable, so that the remaining portion of the order which is otherwise sustainable can be left out unaltered. If the order of the Depot Manager dated 19.11.1992 is severed into two pieces, one on withholding one annual grade increment for a period of two years and the other to have the punishment to carry cumulative effect. The later portion if deleted, the rest of the order of the Depot Manager can be sustained. Since the writ petitioner has been guilty of laches, he should not also try to derive any benefit from out of his own laches and hence, he can be denied the monetary benefits arising from out of such an incision of the order of the Depot Manager. If the benefits are confined only for his terminal benefits, the writ petitioner would be secured the advantage of a little more amount representing the terminal benefits such as gratuity, PF and leave encashment etc. 6. Hence, following the earlier judgments rendered by this Court, this writ petition is also allowed at the admission stage. The order passed on 19.11.1992 by the Depot Manager is modified to the extent of deleting the cumulative effect portion therefrom. After the deletion of the said unsustainable part, the order of the Depot Manager dated 19.11.1992 must be understood as one of stoppage of one annual grade increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the pay of the writ petitioner will be re-fixed, but however, the writ petitioner shall not be entitled for payment of any arrears on that count. The re-fixation of pay will only enure for future benefits so as to help him to receive enhanced terminal benefits. This order has been passed, as consented by the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. No costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: February 01, 2011. BSB [1] 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504