APHC010337552013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10849/2013 Between: 1. CH. M RAO, E-700434, APSRTC DRIVER, BHIMAVARAM DEPOT, S/O.VENKANNA, 38 YEARS, R/O BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC WEST GODAVARI DIST. AT ELURU. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increments of the petitioner for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect vide Proc No. M1 /105 (90) / 2008-BVRM, Dt 19-12-2008, which was confirmed by the Appellate and review authority as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to well established principles of law, against to the principles of natural justice and as such liable to be set aside in 2 the interest of justice by ordering to pay the arrears of differed wages from 19- 12-2008 forthwith IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 13427 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date of hearing of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 2. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent has imposed the punishment of deferment of annual increments of the petitioner for a period of two (02) years with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 19.12.2008. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the year 1996 and that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 12.11.2008 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation for the alleged charge of the petitioner driving in a rash and negligent manner and lack of anticipation and without maintaining the minimum distance between the vehicles, thereby causing an accident on 15.09.2008. The said show cause notice states that the accident resulted in extensive damage to the bus. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increments for a period of two (02) years, which shall have the effect of postponing further increments, besides a penalty of Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of damages. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the punishment deserves to be set aside as no enquiry was conducted before imposing the severe punishment of withholding of annual increments with cumulative effect. It is submitted that this Court has considered similar matters and set aside the punishment imposed by modifying the punishment to that of 4 withholding of annual increments which shall not have effect on future increments. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the negligent attitude of the petitioner resulted in a major accident on 15.09.2008, which resulted in damages assessed at Rs.50,000/-. The cause of the accident is attributed to the petitioner’s lack of anticipation while overtaking the vehicle and that the petitioner dashed the bus against a lorry. It is submitted that a charge sheet was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation and the disciplinary authority has duly considered the explanation and passed a well-reasoned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. As seen from the impugned proceedings, no enquiry was conducted and the only basis for imposing the severe punishment was the show cause notice and the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwanth Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab has held that a major punishment could not be imposed without conducting any enquiry and also, following the judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No.13314 of 2000 and W.P.No.11635 of 2001, the impugned proceedings shall stand modified. The punishment imposed on the petitioner 5 of withholding his annual increments for a period of two (02) years shall have no effect on the future increments of the petitioner. The rest of the punishment is undisturbed. 8. With these modifications, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 05.02.2026 PNS