ORDER :

P.NAVEEN RAO, J.

Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I representing Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha for petitioners.

2. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

“… to issue an appropriate writ or direction or an order more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 05.08.2005 in O.A.No.5507 of 2005 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same by holding as illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and to pass …. ”.

3. On the allegation that respondent temporarily misappropriated the money entrusted to him for payment of electricity charges and fabricated the electricity receipts to show as if he paid the entire amount of Rs.6858/-, whereas he only remitted Rs.1800/-, he was issued with Memo calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be taken against him for temporarily misappropriating the money. In the explanation given by the respondent, he has accepted his guilt and sought to explain by saying that due to some urgent personal needs, he could not remit the entire amount towards electricity charges and agreed to repay the amount. Considering the explanation and taking a lenient view, the disciplinary authority ordered to impose punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect and to recover the amount due by order dated 15.07.1998. The appellate authority affirmed the said punishment.

4. The respondent challenged the decision of the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by the appellate authority in O.A.No.5507 of 2001, before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. Before the appellate authority and also before the Tribunal, the respondent contended that punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and such major punishment cannot be imposed without following due procedure. The appellate authority did not appreciate this contention while affirming punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and set aside the punishment on the ground that no such punishment could have been imposed without following due procedure as required by Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (Rules, 1991).

5. According to the learned Government Pleader representing Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha, the employees of Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha are governed by Separate Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.1708 Education Department, dated 12.09.1968, called as “The Andhra Pradesh Local Library Authority Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1968” (Rules, 1968). According to the Rule (5) (iii) of the Rules 1968, withholding of increments or promotions is a minor punishment and according to Rule 8 of Rules 1968, it is not necessary to hold a detailed enquiry before imposing punishment of withholding of annual increments. He, therefore, contends that the Tribunal erred in not looking into the Special Rules, but relying on the CCA Rules of 1991, which have no application to the service of the respondent.

6. We have gone through the Rules formulated and notified vide G.O.Ms.No.1708, dated 12.09.1968. We agree with the contention of the learned Government Pleader for petitioners that CCA Rules, 1991 are not applicable when Special Rules operate the field.

7. No doubt Rule 5(iii) read with Rule 8 of the Rules, 1968 treats withholding of increments or promotions as minor punishment, but the impact of punishment has to be assessed to know whether it is a minor punishment or a major punishment. If it is a minor punishment, no detailed enquiry into the delinquency alleged is necessary. If the punishment proposed/imposed has adverse consequence on service conditions of employee, no such punishment can be imposed without following due procedure specified to impose major punishment. Withholding of annual increments can be two kinds, viz., withou