Judgment :- The petitioner was employed as a conductor with the 1st respondent Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. While he was conducting a bus plying from Wanaparthy to Kethepalli via Panagal on 18.08.1996, a cheque was conducted on the said bus at stage No.8, Panagal. The Travelling Ticket Inspectors have noticed certain irregularities committed by the petitioner. Importantly, they noticed that the petitioner has not punched the three tickets bearing Nos. 197/799, 468-471 of Rs.2/-denomination. They have also noticed that the writ petitioner has not closed the statistical return (SR) with regard to the tickets of Rs.2/-denomination, while he closed the entries with regard to the tickets of other denominations. It is also alleged against the writ petitioner that the bus has reached Panagal stage 25 minutes ahead of its scheduled time. It is further alleged that the petitioner has allowed the bus to start its journey without completing the process of issuing tickets. It is further alleged that the petitioner has misbehaved with the checking officials by abusing them. He was immediately placed under suspension on 28.08.1996 and he was also served with a charge sheet on the same day. The petitioner filed his explanation thereto on 05.09.1996, denying the charges. A domestic enquiry followed and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.11.1996 holding the petitioner guilty and based thereon, the Depot Manager, Wanaparthy has drawn a show cause notice on 28.11.1996, proposing to impose on the petitioner a penalty of reduction of his basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have the effect on his future increments, besides treating the period of suspension as 'not on duty'. Though the writ petitioner has received the said show cause notice, he has not bothered to file his reply thereto. Consequently, the Depot Manager had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner should be punished and accordingly, imposed the punishment by his proceedings, dated 09.12.1996. It will be relevant to notice the entire contents of the punishment order passed by the Depot Manager, Vanaparthy: "A.P.S.R.T.C. Office of the Depot Manager, No. 02/95(88)/96-WNP Wanaparthy, Dated: 9.12.1996. FINAL ORDER To Sri M. Bala Swamy, E.280211, Conductor //Through DM/GDL// APSRTC: WANAPARTHY DEPOT (Now working at GDL depot) Sub: C & T -Cash and Ticket Irregularities committed by you on route Wanaparthy - Kethepally on 18.8.1996. Ref: 1. Charge memo No. 0617318, dt. 18.8.96. 2. FINAL ORDER To Sri M. Bala Swamy, E.280211, Conductor //Through DM/GDL// APSRTC: WANAPARTHY DEPOT (Now working at GDL depot) Sub: C & T -Cash and Ticket Irregularities committed by you on route Wanaparthy - Kethepally on 18.8.1996. Ref: 1. Charge memo No. 0617318, dt. 18.8.96. 2. This office suspension order No. even, dt. 28.8.96. 3. This office charge sheet No. even, dt. 28.8.96. 4. Your explanation to the charge sheet, dt. 5.9.96. 5. Enquiry office report, dt. 12.11.96. 6. This office show cause notice even, dt. 28.11.96. 7. Your acknowledgment, dt. 28.11.96. * * * A show cause notice for reduction of pay has been issued to you vide reference 6th cited as to why the proposed penalty of reduction of your basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have effect on your future increments besides treating your suspension period as not on duty should not be imposed. You have acknowledged the show cause notice on 28.11.96 vide reference 7th cited. But you have not submitted any explanation to the show cause notice so far. After giving careful consideration to evidences available on record together with the circumstances of the case, I have come to the final conclusion that imposing of proposed penalty of reduction of your basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have effect on your future increments besides treating your suspension period as not on duty is fit and proper to be imposed on you. I therefore, hereby order that your present basic pay be reduced by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have effect on your future increments besides treating your suspension period from 28.8.96 to till your report for duty at the depot where you posted by the Regional Manager, Mahaboobnagar as NOT ON DUTY for all purposes. Please acknowledge the receipt. DEPOT MANGER WANAPARTHY. The petitioner has preferred an appeal there against to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Mahaboobnagar on 25.04.1997 and the said appeal was rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Please acknowledge the receipt. DEPOT MANGER WANAPARTHY. The petitioner has preferred an appeal there against to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Mahaboobnagar on 25.04.1997 and the said appeal was rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Sri Praveen Kumar would urge that the Depot Manager has not applied his mind to the most relevant facts and circumstances of the case and he has not even formally recorded that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, but however, proceeded to impose the penalty. Sri Praveen Kumar would further urge that reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect is a major punishment. Before imposing any such major punishment, a fair and reasonable opportunity must be accorded to every employee and the defence pleaded by him/her deserves consideration. Any major punishment order imposed on the employee, without considering the defence of the employees, is liable to be treated as the one without application of mind and hence, deserves to be set aside. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel would urge that after the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him, a provisional conclusion has already been communicated by the Depot Manager in his show cause notice dated 28.11.1996 and since the petitioner has not raised any objections to the said show cause notice, it must be assumed that he has no such objection for imposition of such a punishment. He therefore, contended that a person, who does not have objection at one stage, cannot later on turn round and raise any objection. The contents of the order of punishment passed by the Depot Manager do not even disclose a finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him. A conclusion drawn by the competent disciplinary authority, while issuing a show cause notice is only a provisional one. It is not a final one. Therefore, till a final conclusion of guilt is recorded, the disciplinary authority was required to keep his mind open and consider the entire matter in its proper perspective and record his defence. The opportune time for recording the findings for a disciplinary authority would arrive at only when he passes the final order. It is not a final one. Therefore, till a final conclusion of guilt is recorded, the disciplinary authority was required to keep his mind open and consider the entire matter in its proper perspective and record his defence. The opportune time for recording the findings for a disciplinary authority would arrive at only when he passes the final order. The entire thought process indulged in by him prior thereto is purely provisional or tentative in nature and content. Therefore, if a final opinion is not recorded in the order of punishment, it would amount to be a case of passing a sentence without holding the employee guilty of the charge laid against him. This is too grave an infirmity in law, to be overlooked. Even on merits, the charge sheet has alleged that the petitioner has removed three tickets of Rs.2/-denomination from his tickets tray, but he has not punched these three tickets. Every conductor is required to punch the ticket at two points, indicating clearly the stage at which the passenger boarded the bus and also his destination for alighting from the bus. This punching at two places would clearly prevent the same ticket from being recycled later on by the conductor. Therefore, not punching the three tickets in question by the petitioner has left scope for him to recycle the same. In my opinion, providing a scope for recycling the tickets could at best be described as a minor misconduct, inasmuch as those tickets may not get recycled ultimately, provided the passenger walks away with those tickets in his hand without returning the same to the conductor. The recycling becomes a possibility only if the conductor collects any such un-punched tickets from the passengers later on. Fortunately that was not the allegation in the instant case. Therefore, the prospects of recycling these three tickets is only as high as it may not even happen. In such circumstances, such a misconduct can only be described as a minor misconduct. With regard to the other allegation, namely that the petitioner has violated the instruction "issue and start", the same can be described as a technical violation. Every conductor is required to issue tickets to all passengers first and enter the details of such tickets in the Statistical Return furnished to him and then, issue directions for the onward journey of the bus. Every conductor is required to issue tickets to all passengers first and enter the details of such tickets in the Statistical Return furnished to him and then, issue directions for the onward journey of the bus. If the bus were carrying on a large number of passengers, the process of issuing tickets to all of them would be a time consuming affair. Therefore, to keep up with the time schedule of the bus, the onward journey may have been allowed to commence with a hope that the process of issuing tickets could be completed before the next stage of journey arrives. Similarly, when there are few passengers available in the bus, in such circumstances also, the onward journey can be commenced with the hope that the necessary details can be entered in the Statistical Return in the meantime. Therefore, the allegations in this regard made by the Corporation will depend upon the facts and circumstances in each case. Hence, it is described as a technical violation on the part of a conductor, though there is a good sense behind the said instruction, which is intended to prevent any temptation of misusing ones position as a conductor. After all the Corporation would survive only when the revenue generated by its operations is faithfully accounted for. Insofar as the allegation relating to arriving at a particular bus stage ahead of the time schedule is concerned, again, this could be dependent upon the facts and circumstances. If there are no passengers waiting to board the bus en route, and if the road is very clear or is having less traffic, the bus journey can be far smoother. Hence, a particular destination could be reached ahead of time. Unless there is material to indicate that deliberately and wantonly the conductor has not stopped the bus at the regular stages en route and consequently, caused loss to the interests of the Corporation and simultaneously, caused inconvenience to the passengers waiting for the bus service, such an allegation cannot fructify itself into a serious nature. Insofar as the other allegation relating to abusing the checking officials is concerned, the petitioner has all through been claiming that he has refused to sign the statement prepared by the said checking officials, inasmuch as they have declined to record his version of the incident. Insofar as the other allegation relating to abusing the checking officials is concerned, the petitioner has all through been claiming that he has refused to sign the statement prepared by the said checking officials, inasmuch as they have declined to record his version of the incident. In that process, there was an argument that ensued between the petitioner and the checking officials. For one to be held guilty of such an allegation, there should have been a specific finding recorded by the competent disciplinary authority as to the reasons why he still holds the employee guilty of the misconduct alleged in this regard against such an employee. The reasons are essentially missing in this case as to why the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of the misdemeanor alleged against him. Reasons are the live links between the competent authority on the one hand and the delinquent employee on the other. They clearly and crisply indicate the lines on which the mind of the disciplinary authority has functioned. It is essential that all relevant factors alone must be taken into account and consideration by the disciplinary authority while eschewing the irrelevant facts and factors. This demarcation could become feasible only from the reasons assigned. Sans reasons, the exercise takes the shape and form of a mechanical exercise. Imposition of penalties cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise. Regulation 8 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, in no unmistakable terms, indicated that the punishments listed out therein can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. By using the expressions "good and sufficient reasons", the Regulations cast an obligation on the part of the disciplinary authority to set out what those good and sufficient reasons are all about. Those reasons must be the one, which must emanate from the record already available on the file of the domestic tribunal. Therefore, without assigning any reasons, no punishment could have been imposed by any disciplinary authority on any of the employees. It is hardly in doubt -rightly not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that reduction of pay by two stages is one of the listed punishments under Regulation 8. For sheer absence of reasons available on the face of the order of punishment, the order deserves to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back for consideration afresh. For sheer absence of reasons available on the face of the order of punishment, the order deserves to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back for consideration afresh. As it is, the punishment has been imposed by the Depot Manager more than 15 years back. Therefore, to avoid any further litigation, I consider it appropriate to modify the same to that of a minor punishment. Accordingly, the punishment imposed on the petitioner stands modified as under: "Pay of the petitioner shall stand reduced by two incremental stages for a period of two years while treating the period spent under suspension as not on duty for all purposes. In other words, that portion of the Order passed by the disciplinary authority holding that the reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years will have the effect on future increments alone stands deleted." The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated supra. The pay fixation of the petitioner would be worked out accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand disposed of.