1 APHC010294972016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 38383/2016 Between: S. Suresh, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SYED AZMATULLAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 2. V.V.Satish (SC FOR APTRANSCO) 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 38383 of 2016 Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue a writ an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No CMD/CGM HRD/JS/GMHR/DGMDC/PODC/F 267VJA/D No 2548/ 16 dated 23.09.2016 issued against the petitioner herein as being illegal arbitrary unconstitutional colourable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14 19 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same....” 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by 2nd respondent, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, confirming the order dated 14.03.2016, passed by the 3rd respondent, imposing the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner, who is working in the Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited. Brief case of the petitioner:- 3. The petitioner initially joined in service on 09.07.1997 and was subsequently appointed as a Sub-Engineer on 01.09.2000. 3 Thereafter, he was promoted as an Additional Assistant Engineer and assumed charge of the said post on 30.12.2006. At that time, 3rd respondent issued a Memo bearing No. JS/HR/DGM/IV/PD/DC/F267/VJA/D.No.1709/13 dated 19.09.2013, calling for an explanation from the petitioner regarding the lapses extracted hereunder: “That the Public Servant shall submit Annual Property Statements to the competent authority in his service every year. But, the Public Servant has not submitted Annual Property Statements to the Competent Authority in his entire service i.e. from the date of entry into service on 09-07-1997 to date of trap on 28- 06-2011 and violated Regulation 5 of A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Revised Conduct Regulations as adopted by APSPDCL. 2. That the Public Servant has drawn the material vide work order No.100000061193 dated 25-1-2008, but he did not erect the transformer at the field of Sri V. Venkateswarlu (father of the complainant). Again on 8-3-2011 he drawn the material vide work order No.520000009621 towards Padmavathi Binny Rice Mill, Gummadidurru village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal and erected the same at the fields of Sri V.Venkateswarlu though service connection was provided vide SC.No.63333102000805 25-08-2010 and allotted 63 KVA DTR to Padmavathi Binny Rice Mill, Gummadidurru village and violated Regulation 4 of A.P.State Electricity Board Employees Revised Conduct Regulations”. 4. Upon receipt of the said memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.02.2014, denying the charges leveled against 4 him. Thereafter, on 12.03.2015, the 3rd respondent issued a show- cause notice to the petitioner proposing the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation along with documentary evidence on 30.04.2015. The specific case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without conducting any departmental enquiry, passed the order dated 14.03.2016 vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/JS/GM(HR)/DGM(DC)/PO(DC)/F.267-VJA/ D.No. 4 25/16, imposing punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, who is the appellate authority, rejected the said appeal and confirmed the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Brief case of the respondent-corporation:- 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-corporation, it is stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 30.04.2015, wherein he pleaded ignorance, is merely a continuation of his earlier reply dated 28.02.2014. Since there was 5 no change in the circumstances set forth in the petitioner’s subsequent explanation, the appointing authority, being vested with the requisite powers, concluded the matter and, by final orders dated 14.03.2016, duly imposed the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. 6. Heard Sri K.Asad Ahmad, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner on record and Sri Abdul Mateen, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL. Perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent authorities in imposing the punishment of postponement of two increments without conducting a departmental enquiry against the petitioner is contrary to the well- settled legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab1, which was followed by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P. No. 4265 of 2007. It is further submitted that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said order and is, therefore, liable to be allowed. 1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 6 8. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court a Circular issued by the Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Corporate Office, Tirupati, vide Memo No. CGM/HRD/DS-II/AS-III/PO(DC)/D.No.1086/11, dated 06.07.2011. In the said Circular, the Chairman and Managing Director instructed all Superintending Engineers and Divisional Engineers that, to avoid legal complications, even though the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is treated as a minor penalty under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the competent authority proposing to impose such penalty shall follow the elaborate procedure prescribed under Regulation 10(2) of the said Regulations, i.e., by appointing an Enquiry Officer. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to extract elaborate procedure as in 10(2) of Discipline & Appeal Regulation hereunder:- Regulation 10(2)(a) of Discipline & Appeal Regulations:- No order imposing on a member of a service a penalty specified in items(iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in regulation 5 of Discipline & Appeal Regulations, shall be passed except after conducting departmental enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. However, as per the orders issued in Memo No.CGM/HRD/DS-II/AS- III/PO(DC)/D.No.1086/11, dt.6-7-2011 for awarding 7 punishment of “Withholding of increments with cumulative effect”, conducting of departmental inquiries is necessary to avoid legal complications. 10. In the present case on hand, a plain reading of the counter- affidavit filed by the respondents shows that, since there were no changed circumstances in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the appointing authority, having the necessary powers, came to a conclusion and issued final orders dated 14.03.2016, duly imposing the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. In the said facts of the case, the appointing authority, without conducting a departmental enquiry, issued final orders imposing the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, the said orders are in violation of Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations referred to above. 11. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the well settled legal principle, held in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, where the prime question before the Hon’ble Apex Court was whether the imposing of the Major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect without an enquiry is legal or not? 8 12. The Apex Court after perceiving the relevant provisions and also examining Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 categorically held that the penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty as the employment is reduced in his time scale. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its later judgment in Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Raj Kumar Goel2, firmly reiterated that the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect imposed, is a major punishment. The relevant para of same is extracted hereunder for the sake of comprehensive view:- “9. At the very outset, we may clearly state that there is no discord or dispute over the exposition of facts. The controversy has arisen with regard to implementation of the order of punishment imposed by the authority on the delinquent employee. The courts below have opined that though it is mentioned in the order of punishment that there is stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect which is a minor punishment yet the manner of implementation converts it to a major punishment. There can be no cavil over the proposition that when a punishment of stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is imposed, it is a major punishment. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the decision in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [Kulwant Singh Gill V. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504: 1991 SCC (L&S) 998 : (1991) 16 ATC 940] wherein it has been held that withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly would be a minor punishment but withholding of increments with cumulative effect, the consequences being quite hazardous to the 2 (2014) 15 SCC 748 9 employee, it would come in the compartment of major punishment. Proceeding further the two Judge Bench stated thus: (SCC pp. 507-08, para 4) "4. ... 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 forever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale 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 time scale 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 time scale 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." After so observing, the Court treated the said punishment to be a major penalty. In said case while interpreting clause (v) of Rule 5 of the same Regulations, the Court did not accept the reasoning of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, ILR (1985) 2 P&H 193].” 14. Further, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in R.D Pachoriya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 has followed the above well-settled legal principle coined by the Hon’ble Apex Court way back in the year 1991. 15. Reverting to the case on hand, it is apparent that the respondent-Corporation has failed to demonstrate that they had conducted an enquiry, before imposing the major punishment on 3 2022 SCC Online MP 5841 10 the petitioner. The said action is per se hit by the Dictum held in Kulwant Singh Gill way back in the year 1990 itself. 16. In nutshell, the punishment imposed by the respondent- Corporation, which was mechanically affirmed by the appellate authority, is liable to be interdicted as it is a fundamental breach of procedure established under the Law i.e., imposing the major penalty, without conducting an enquiry is highly antithesis to the essential jurisprudential principles of Law. 17. In view of the well-settled legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, which were followed by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P. No. 4265 of 2007, and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the Memo No.CMD / CGM(HRD) / JS / GM(HR) / DGM (DC) / PO(DC) / F.267-VJA/D.No.2548 / 16, dated 23.09.2016. Consequently, the respondent-Corporation shall disburse the service benefits of the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. 11 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 29.10.2025. Asr 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.38383 of 2016 29.10.2025 Asr