Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 1 year with cumulative effect without holding any departmental enquiry vide proc.no.02/62(195)/99-BVRM, Dt.14.10.99, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and as well as the review authority vide Proc.No. /Steno/19(23)/2000-DY.CTM Dt.26.6.2000 and Proc.No. Steno / 675(75) / 2000-RM-W.G. Dt.27.12.2000 respectively as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the well established principles of law and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to pay the arrears of deferred increments w.e.f. 14.10.1999 forthwith.” 2. Petitioner is working as Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. While he was on duty on 13.08.1999 on route Jangareddygudem to Bhimavaram, during transit, there was inspection of the Bus by the Officers and on the ground that he was in possession of certain unconnected tickets of Rs.2.50 ps denomination, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing show cause notice, and after referring to the explanation offered by him, the third respondent – Depot Manager, Bhimavaram, passed final order, dated 14.10.1999 in proceedings No.02/62(195)/99-BVRM, imposing on him the punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. 3. This writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that the impugned order is passed without conducting regular enquiry. It is submitted that withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment and it can be ordered only after conducting regular enquiry, as such, the impugned order is illegal. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the respondents that it was proved that the petitioner was in possession of unconnected tickets, which is contrary to APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, and it amounts to misconduct. 5. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the respondents that it was proved that the petitioner was in possession of unconnected tickets, which is contrary to APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, and it amounts to misconduct. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in S.K.MASTHAN v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC AND OTHERS ( 1999 (2) ALT 109 ), in which, while referring to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation C.C.A. Regulations, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that denial of increments with cumulative effect tantamounts to major penalty. On the said ground, the impugned order therein was quashed. 6. I have perused the afore-cited judgment, a copy of which is placed on record. 7. In the present case, though there is no allegation of ticket irregularities while conducting the bus on route Jangareddygudem to Bhimavaram, it is alleged that he was in possession of certain tickets, which are not connected to the route in question. There is no allegation of using such tickets by the petitioner also. In any event, having regard to the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the third respondent, this Court is of the view that the judgment in the case of S.K.MASTHAN (1 supra) will support the case of the petitioner and in the said judgment, this Court held that withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect tantamounts to major punishment and the same cannot be ordered unless regular enquiry is conducted. 8. In that view of the matter, in normal course, the matter was to go back, but, in view of the fact that the impugned order is of 1999 and as it is not in dispute that the petitioner was in possession of certain tickets which are not connected to the route in question, I deem it appropriate to modify the impugned order to the extent of punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, imposed on the petitioner by the third respondent, to withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. 9. Subject to the above modification in the impugned order, the writ petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs.