M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.

1. The petitioner workman filed this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to declare the final order, dated 10.10.1998, in Proceedings No. 01/2(6)/98-DM:BNS issued by the respondent as illegal, and arbitrary and set the same aside and grant the consequential benefits including arrears.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri S.A.K. Mynuddin, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and of Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC (now TSRTC). I have perused the material record.

3. To begin with, it is appropriate to refer to the charge formulated against the petitioner, which reads thus:

For having driven the Vehicle No. AP 9Z 1517 in a rash and negligent manner without taking any precautionary measures while parking the vehicle on platform due to which one passenger who is waiting at Bus Station Bhainsa as a result of which injuries caused to the passenger at about 20.00 hours on 13.4.1998 while performing 12.00 hours Kubeer (S) service, which is a serious misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(ix) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963.

The penalty that was imposed without conducting a domestic enquiry reads thus:

Withholding the annual increment for a period of one year, which shall have its effect of postponing future increments.

4. The Counsel for the workman contended as follows:

The Depot Manager of the Corporation/respondent herein having issued a charge-sheet and having received the explanation of the petitioner/driver, without considering the explanation, issued final order dated 10.10.1998, imposing the penalty of withholding the annual increment for a period of one year, which shall have its effect of postponing future increments. Thus, a major penalty was imposed without conducting an enquiry. The penalty imposed is a major penalty under the Regulations and that for imposing such penalty, a domestic enquiry must invariably be held and that in the case on hand, admittedly, no enquiry was held, but, a major penalty was imposed and, therefore, the proceeding impugned is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/Corporation submitted as follows:

Part-IV of the Regulations deals with 'Discipline and Penalties'. As per item (iv) of Clause 1 of Regulation 8, withholding of increments is a minor penalty. Regulation 12 deals with the procedure for imposing penalties. Regulation 12(2) says that no order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in items (vii), (viii) and (ix) of Clause 1 of Regulation 8 shall be passed except after an enquiry is held as far as may be in the manner provided in the Regulations. Therefore, for imposing penalties under the items (vii), (viii) and (ix) of Clause 1 of Regulation 8 only a domestic enquiry is a condition precedent. However, for imposing a penalty under item (iv) of Clause 1 of Regulation 8, namely, withholding of increments, no enquiry is contemplated under the Regulations. Further, Regulation 16 dealing with 'withholding of increments' mandates that in ordering the withholding of an increment, the authority passing the order shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. In view of the Regulations, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is a minor penalty. Therefore, no domestic enquiry was necessary for imposing such penalty. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned Counsel for the Corporation while disputing the correctness of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and while reiterating the stand of the Corporation that the penalty imposed is a minor penalty alternatively contended that in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the penalty imposed is a major penalty, the matter may be remitted with directions to the Disciplinary Authority to impose an appropriate punishment, which the Corporation intends to imp