JUDGMENT (Per B. Prakash Rao, J.)

Heard Sri V.T.M Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation and Sri G. Ravi Mohan, and other learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The short interesting question, which commonly arises for consideration in these batch of cases, is as to whether, on the facts and circumstances, any distinction can be drawn in between in the cases of two punishments of one withholding increments with and another without cumulative effect awarded? And whether such cases would fall within the mischief of major penalty calling for a regular enquiry as contemplated by the Regulations framed by the appellant Corporation herein?

3. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondents are the employees working with the appellant-Corporation, who initiated the disciplinary enquiry on certain allegations and ultimately on issuance of show-cause notice, the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents in the writ petitions filed by them challenging the punishment that the action of the appellant-Corporation would virtually amo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document