JUDGMENT : 1. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22919 of 2005 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the disciplinary action culminating in the penalty and postponement of one increment without cumulative effect was dismissed. The appellant filed the underlying Writ Petition No.22919 of 2005 challenging the final order of the respondent No.2 in Memo No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS.III/PO.V/F.3197-C/04-2, dated 26-10-2004. 2. Heard the appellant (M. Narsimulu) who appeared party-in- person and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., (TGNPDCL) for the respondents and perused the record. Factual matrix in brief 3. The appellant while working as Divisional Engineer at Kamareddy in the year 2003 was directed to appoint 32 Junior Linemen (contract). The appellant in compliance of the direction issued appointment and posting orders. It was alleged that the appellant diverted three of the Junior Linemen to the control room of the Division Office, contrary to the instructions. A show-cause notice vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-III/PO-V/F.No.3191- C/2004-1, dated 17.07.2004 was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to show-cause within fifteen (15) days as to why ‘severe disciplinary action including postponement of an increment with cumulative effect should not be taken on him’. The appellant submitted his explanation dated 27.07.2004. The disciplinary authority, after considering the explanation of the appellant, awarded the punishment of ‘postponement of an increment without cumulative effect’ vide Memo No. CMD/CGM (HRD)/GM(S)/AS.III/PO.V/F.3197-C/04-2, dated 26.10.2004. The appellant’s statutory appeal dated 09.09.2005 was rejected as time barred vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS.III/PO.III/ F.No.3197-C/04-3, dated 26.09.2005. Aggrieved by the Memo dated 26.10.2004 imposing the punishment of postponement of increment without cumulative effect and the rejection of the appeal by Memo dated 26.09.2005, the appellant filed the underlying writ petition No.22919 of 2005, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25.04.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present Writ Appeal. Contentions of appellant 4. The appellant (party-in-person) raised the following contentions: i. The show-cause notice dated 17.07.2004 proposed a major penalty – postponement of increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, under Regulation 10(2)(a) of APSEB discipline and appeal regulations (for short ‘Regulation’), a full-fledged departmental enquiry by an enquiry officer was mandatory. ii. Contentions of appellant 4. The appellant (party-in-person) raised the following contentions: i. The show-cause notice dated 17.07.2004 proposed a major penalty – postponement of increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, under Regulation 10(2)(a) of APSEB discipline and appeal regulations (for short ‘Regulation’), a full-fledged departmental enquiry by an enquiry officer was mandatory. ii. The subsequent imposition of a minor penalty - postponement of an increment without cumulative effect does not cure the initial illegality of not holding an enquiry, when a major penalty was proposed. iii. The appellant by placing reliance on two judgments of this Court in B. Mondaiah v. Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and others , 2006 (8) SLR 780 and K. Samba Siva Rao v. Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited and others , 2010 (1) ALD 776 contended that the show-cause notice proposed a major penalty, and the employer is obligated to hold the departmental enquiry, even if a minor penalty is ultimately imposed. iv. The disciplinary action against the appellant was vindictive, arising from his earlier W.P.No.17825 of 2004 which was filed concerning seniority. Contentions on behalf of respondents 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted as hereunder: i. The penalty of ‘stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect’ is explicitly categorized as a minor penalty under the Regulations. ii. That since the proposed penalty was minor, the procedure under Regulation 10(1) i.e., show-cause notice and consideration of explanation was followed. No enquiry much less a full-fledged enquiry under Regulation (2)(a) was required in the present case, as the penalty of stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect was classified as a minor penalty under the Regulations. iii. The judgments relied upon by the appellant are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are distinguishable, inasmuch as in those cases, the show-cause notice explicitly propose penalties classified as ‘major’ under the concerned Discipline and Appeal Regulations. iv. The appellate authority rightly rejected the appeal as time-barred, since it was filed nearly eleven (11) months after the issuance of the final order, which is well beyond the stipulated three (03) months period prescribed for filing an appeal under the Regulations. Analysis and reasoning 6. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and the material available on record. 7. Analysis and reasoning 6. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and the material available on record. 7. The core issue in the present appeal is the classification of the penalty, proposed in the show-cause notice dated 17.07.2004. The contents of the show-cause notice dated 17.07.2004 are reproduced hereunder: Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/ AS-III/PO-V/F.No.3191-c/ 2004-1, Dt.17.07.2004 SUB:- Estt. – Engineering Services – Sri M.Narsimhuloo, G.M.(Projects), former DE/Operation/Kamareddy – Certain lapses – Show-Cause Notice – Issued. Ref:- DE/O&C/KMR, Memo No.Adm/E2/D.No.3155, Dt. 14.10.2003. * * * Strict instructions were issued long time back, not to divert any incumbents to some other office/place. In spite of the above instructions, it is seen that Sri M.Narsimhuloo, former Divisional Engineer/Operation/Kamareddy has issued orders vide letter under reference diverting the following incumbents from Section Officer/ Operation/Kamareddy to the control of Section Officer/Tech./Divisional Office/Kamareddy for utilization in Control Room. 1. Sri M.Raju, contract JLM. 2. Sri D.Ramu, contract JLM. 3. Sri M.Shankar, contract JLM. The above action of Sri M. Narsimhuloo, former Divisional Engineer/Operation/Kamareddy is a clear lapse on his part. For the above lapse, Sri M. Narsimhuloo, Former/Divisional Engineer/Operation/Kamareddy is directed to show-cause within (15) days from the date of receipt of this memo as to why severe disciplinary action including postponement of an increment with cumulative effect should not be taken on him. The incumbent is also informed that if the explanation is not received within the due date, it will be construed that he has no explanation to offer and further action deemed fit will be taken against him. 8. A perusal of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations is necessary for the proper appreciation of the issue in controversy. Regulation No.5 classifies the penalties. The respondents have placed on record the office order dated 27.09.2002 which categorically states that “stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty”. This classification is binding on the appellant and has not been challenged. The relevant portion of the Regulation No.5 is extracted hereunder: 5. Regulation No.5 classifies the penalties. The respondents have placed on record the office order dated 27.09.2002 which categorically states that “stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty”. This classification is binding on the appellant and has not been challenged. The relevant portion of the Regulation No.5 is extracted hereunder: 5. Penalties: The following penalties, may, for good and sufficient reasons or for any misconduct specified in regulation 6 and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon the employees of the Board, namely: (i) xxx (ii) xxx (iii) xxx (iv) xxx (v) a) Recovery from pay of an employee of the whole or any part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Board by reason of the negligence, misconduct, or disobedience to lawful orders, of an employee in the discharge of his duties. b) Recovery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of reduction to a lower stage in time scale ordered where such order cannot be given effect. Explanation:- i. If one increment is ordered to be postponed without, cumulative effect, the amount to be ordered to be withheld is 1x12xRs.100/-where the rate of increment is Rs. 100/-. This will get multiplied depending on the number of increments ordered to be withheld as indicate below: 1) Increment 1x12x100 = Rs.1200.00 2) Increment 2x12x100 = Rs.2400.00 3) Increment 3x12x100 = Rs.3600.00 ii. If one increment is ordered to be postponed with cumulative effect, the amount to be ordered to be withheld is 1x3x12x Rs.100/- where the rate of increment is Rs. 100/-. This will get multiplied depending on the number of increments ordered to be withheld as indicate below: 1) Increment 1x3x12x100 = Rs.3600.00 2) Increment 2x3x12x100 = Rs.7200.00 3) Increment 3x3x12x100 = Rs.10800.00 iii. In case the punishment of postponing to increment is ordered, can be implemented only partially, the increments may be postponed to the extent possible and for the remaining portion of the punishment, recovery may be ordered as indicated in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above. (vi) xxx (vii) xxx (viii) xxx (ix) xxx 9. It is also relevant to extract Regulation 10, which deals with produce for imposing penalty which reads as under: “10. (vi) xxx (vii) xxx (viii) xxx (ix) xxx 9. It is also relevant to extract Regulation 10, which deals with produce for imposing penalty which reads as under: “10. Procedure for imposing penalties: 1) No order imposing on a member of a service a penalty specified in items (i), (ii) and (iii) (v) or (ix) of regulation 5 shall be passed except after. a) The member of the service is informed in writing by the authority competent to impose the penalty of the proposal to take action in regard to him and of the allegations on which the action is proposed to be taken, and is given an opportunity to make any representations he may wish to make to such authority; and….” 10. The procedure for imposing penalty covered under (v) of Regulation 5, which is a minor penalty is governed by Regulation 10(1) which only requires (a) informing the employee in writing or the allegation (b) giving opportunity to make any representation (c) considering such representation before imposing of the penalty. The show-cause notice dated 17.07.2004 right from the inception proposed only a penalty classified as a ‘minor penalty’ under the Regulations and the prescribed procedure has been complied with. 11. Further, in view of N.O.O (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.117, dated 27.09.2002, which unequivocally classifies ‘withholding of increments’ as a minor penalty, this Court finds no legal basis to treat the ‘postponement of increment with cumulative effect’ as a major penalty. The appellant cannot seek to convert what is a minor penalty under the Regulations into a major one and contend that the procedure contemplated for imposition of a major penalty has to be followed. 12. The record in the present case confirms that the procedure for imposing a minor penalty was scrupulously followed. The appellant submitted his explanation dated 27.07.2004 which was considered before the lesser penalty of postponement on an increment without cumulative effect was imposed. 13. The appellant’s reliance on the judgments of B. Mondaiah (supra) and K. Samba Siva Rao (supra) is completely misplaced and inapposite. In both the said judgments, the show-cause notice proposed ‘major penalties’ under the applicable Regulations of stoppage of ‘two increments with cumulative effect’. The legal principle laid down therein that proposing a major penalty creates obligation to hold an enquiry, while the appropriate, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In both the said judgments, the show-cause notice proposed ‘major penalties’ under the applicable Regulations of stoppage of ‘two increments with cumulative effect’. The legal principle laid down therein that proposing a major penalty creates obligation to hold an enquiry, while the appropriate, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The foundational facts of the present case are completely different and distinct. In this case, the proposed penalty was always a ‘minor penalty’. 14. The learned Single Judge correctly identified this distinction and rightly held that Regulation 10(2)(a) was not attracted. Thus, we find no error in this conclusion. 15. Regarding the allegation of mala fides and vindictiveness, the appellant has not provided any material beyond a mere coincidence between his seniority dispute and the show-cause notice. 16. The alleged disciplinary action was based on a specific, clearly documented lapse, namely his diversion of the staff contrary to the instructions. In the absence of a clear proof of malice, this Court cannot invalidate a prima facie bonafide administrative action on a mere suspicion. 17. The appeal filed by the appellant was far beyond the three (03) month statutory period prescribed under the Regulations. The reasons cited in the delay, namely, the death of the appellant’s son on 16.08.2004, while tragic, occurred before the final order was passed and does not confer an adequate explanation to the eleven (11) month delay, in filing the appeal, which requires filing of only a written submission. The appellate authority’s decision to reject the appeal as time-barred was neither arbitrary nor perverse. 18. In the light of the above analysis and for the foregoing reasons, the penalty proposed and imposed on the appellant was minor penalty as per the governing Service Regulations. The mandatory procedure for imposing a minor penalty was fully complied with. The judgments cited by the appellant are distinguishable on facts and law and are not applicable to the appellant’s case. We hold that the findings of the learned Single Judge are well reasoned and do not warrant any interference by this Court. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.