APHC010264752005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16131 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-38 [3506] S.Allabakash, Cuddapah District. ...Petitioner Vs. The Regional Manager APSRTC, Cuddapah and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: D KASIM SAHEB Advocate for Respondent: ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) CORAM :SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 9th February 2026 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent imposing the multiplied punishment of deferment of increments for two years with cumulative effect and imposing the penalty of Rs.9950/ and suspension period from 10.7.2002 to 7.12.2002 as not on duty by his proceedings No.01/2(24)/2002-CDP, dt: 7.12.2002 and conforming the same by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.St/20A(17)/2003- DVM’C’, dt:13.8.2003, which was not communicated the proceedings to the petitioner and rejecting the review 2 CGR, J W.P. No.16131 of 2005 petition by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No. PA/20B(12)/2004-RM’C’, dt:27.7.2004 as being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to set aside the same, consequently direct the 4th respondent to release the increments suspension period salary and Rs.9950/-, which was recovered from the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.” 2. Petitioner, Driver/Shramik, working with respondent Corporation indulged in an accident that occurred on 10.07.2002. He stated to have dashed stationed trolly, causing damage to the Corporation vehicle as well as the third-party vehicle. On account of the same, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner. After enquiry, the disciplinary authority has passed order dated 07.12.2002 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years, which would have the effect of postponing the future increments and also ordered for recovery of the damage sustained for an amount of Rs.9,950/- and suspension period was directed to be treated as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments. The said order came to be confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority vide orders dated 13.08.2003. Petitioner also preferred review against the aforesaid orders, the revisional authority vide order dated 3 CGR, J W.P. No.16131 of 2005 27.07.2004 rejected the same, upholding the punishment imposed. Petitioner assails the primary order as confirmed in appeal and revision by present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the punishment imposed i.e., deferment of two annual increments and also recovery of amount on account of damage sustained virtually amounted to dual punishment, which is clearly in contravention to the service Rules and Regulations of the respondent Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation tried to support the impugned orders under challenge. 5. This Court in W.P. No.3545 of 2007, by order dated 01.11.2018, considering more or less similar set of facts has disposed of the writ petition modifying the punishment imposed in following terms: “The writ petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by the revisional authority to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect, it is made clear that the above modified punishment is without any monetary benefits.” 4 CGR, J W.P. No.16131 of 2005 6. The aforesaid order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court has been further confirmed in W.A. No.440 of 2019, vide order dated 17.10.2022. 7. Keeping in view aforesaid order and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, this Court is also of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is on higher side as it not only has impact on withholding of increments but also seeks to recover the damages as well. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by modifying the punishment imposed under impugned proceedings to that of reduction of pay by two annual increments without cumulative effect, however, it is also made clear that aforesaid modified punishment is without any monetary benefits. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss