IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIX P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA * * * WP.No.26250 OF 2006 Between: G.N. Rao, s/o. Narasimha Rao, aged about years, Occ. Conductor, E.No. 505186, R/o. Narsapuram, West Godavari district … Petitioner Versus The Depot Manager, APSRTC Pulivendula Depot, Kadapa district & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.Balla Ravindranath & Kolla Savithri Devi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R.M.Reddy THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.26250 of 2006 OR D E R : This writ petition is filed assailing the action of the second respondent/ Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Narsapuram Depot, West Godavari District in issuing the proceedings No. 01/2(12)96-NSP, dated 20-9-1997 by which the petitioner who is a driver of Narsapuram Depot was imposed a major punishment of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, without issuing show cause notice and without asking for comments from the petitioner on enquiry report . The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 20-9-1997 of the second respondent reads thus: “ Therefore, I hereby order to defer annual increment of Sri G.N.Rao, E.No.505186 Narsapuram Depot, for a period of One year which shall have effect on his future increments ”. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is working as a Driver at second respondent- Depot. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, alleging certain irregularities, in the matter of having drove the bus AP-9Z-8787 on the route Narsapur to Tirupati on 12-7-1996 with lack of anticipation, lack of control over the service in the rash and negligent manner while overtaking the lorries going in the same direction and collided with lorry AHW-7313 resulting injuries to 25 persons travelling in the bus including lorry driver and causing extensive damages amounting to Rs.13,603-32 paise. On the basis of report submitted by the enquiry officer, without issuing a show-cause notice and without asking comments on enquiry report the proceedings dated 20-9-1997 were issued straight away imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year, with cumulative effect. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the second respondent followed a peculiar procedure of initiating the disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the impugned order was passed straight away without issuing show-cause notice. This peculiar practice of imposing punishment on the basis of enquiry report without issuing show-cause notice was deprecated by this Court in W.P.No.18299 of 2005, dated 5-9-2005, and the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents agreed for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the said Judgment. The relevant portion of the Judgment in W.P.No.18299 of 2005, dated 5-9-2005 is at Paragraph 4, which reads as under. “ Strictly speaking, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter needs to be remanded. However, having regard to the fact that nearly six years have elapsed, this Court does not find it proper, to subject the petitioner to another set of proceedings. Taking the totality of the circumstances, into account, the punishment of stoppage of increment shall be treated, as the one without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit, up to the date of this order, on account of the modification of the punishment ”. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23114 of 2005 directing the respondents as is being done hereunder. The respondents are directed to treat the punishment of stoppage of increment as the one without cumulative effect. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit, up to the date of this order, on account of the modification of the punishment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. DECEMBER 20th, 2006. I s L