ORDER
1. The petitioner while serving as driver in the establishment of the APSRTC departmental enquiry was initiated under the APSRTC CCA Regulations. The Depot Manager, Badvvel Depot who is the disciplinary authority under the regulations finding the petitioner guilty of the charge, imposed penalty and directed that “annual increments when next falls due be deferred for a period of two years which shall have effect of postponing future increments.” It is needless to state that the punishment imposed on the delinquent is a major penalty. There is no controversy between the parties that this penalty came to be imposed on the petitioner-delinquent without holding a regular departmental enquiry envisaged under the APSRTC CCA Regulations. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 17-1-1989 preferred an appeal on 3-9-1991 to the 3rd respondent-the appellate authority. The 3rd respondent-appellate authority dismissed the appeal by his proceedings dated 28-5-1996. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the order of the disciplinary authority as well as that of the appellate authority. The impugned proceedings suffer from an error apparent on their face in-as-much-as, a major penalty was imposed on the petitioner-delinquent without holding a regular departmental enquiry as envisaged under the provisions of the APSRTC CCA Regulations end on that count itself, the order made by the disciplinary authority as well as the confirming order passed by the appellate authority should go. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC would contend that the disciplinary authority made the order on 17-1-1989 whereas the appeal was preferred to the appellate authority on 3-9-1991, and since there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the appellate authority, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. The appellate authority has not dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in preferring the appeal, but on the merit it has chosen to dismiss the appeal. It is well settled that delay question cannot be reopened once the appellate authority chooses to decide the lis before it on merit. Since the impugned proceedings are made in utter violation of principles of natural justice, fair play in action affecting the civil rights of the petitioner-delinquent, I am not inclined to reject the writ petition at this stage solely on the ground of delay. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC.
2. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings of the disciplinary authority as well as that of the appellate authority are quashed. No costs.