THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23833 of 2005 Dated 8th November 2005 Between: S.Basha S/o. Abdul Saheb …Petitioner and The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah District. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23833 of 2005 O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as a driver in APSRTC. He was issued a Charge Sheet, dated 19.7.1999, alleging that he caused an accident on 20.3.1999, and that he was required to submit the explanation, as to why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 25.8.1999, to the same. On a consideration of the same, the Depot Manager, Proddatur Depot, passed an order dated 14.10.1999, imposing the penalty of stoppage of annual increment, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 25.5.2000. Thereafter, the review filed by the petitioner against the order of the appellate authority was also rejected by the respondent. Hence, this writ petition. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Depot Manager, Proddatur, 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 and submits that stoppage of increment is a major penalty, and it cannot be imposed, except by conducting departmental enquiry. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the penalty imposed against the petitioner itself is minimal, if the lapse on his part is taken into account. It is a matter of record that the Depot Manager, Proddatur, imposed the penalty of stoppage of annual increment, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, on the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Though the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, before the penalty was imposed, no departmental enquiry was conducted. In 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 Depot Manager, Proddatur, to pass fresh orders. To avoid further delay and complication in the mater, 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 14.10.1999, passed by the Depot Manager, Proddatur, shall be treated as the one for stoppage of annual increment, for a period of two years, 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. ____________________ 8th November 2005 PAN