- (1.) Rule nisi. Sri C.V. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. took notice for the respondents. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
(2.) The petitioner is a Driver in the establishment of A.P.S.R.T.C. The 3rdrespondent without holding a regular departmental enquiry envisaged under A.P.S.R.T.C. C.C.A. Regulations and A.P.S.R.T.C. C.C.A. Conduct Rules, imposed a penalty of denial of two increments with cumulative effect as a disciplinary measure on the petitioner, by proceedings dt. 6-12-1994. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. That was also dismissed by order dt. 18-3-1998. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the actions.
(3.) It is well settled that denial of increments with cumulative effecttant amounts to a major penalty, and such penalty cannot be imposed by the disciplinary authority without holding a regular departmental enquiry in terms of relevant service regulations. In the instant case admittedly no regular enquiry as envisaged under A.P.S.R.T.C. C.C.A. Regulations was held. In that view of the matter 1 allow the writ petition and quash the impugned proceedings. No costs.;