JUDGMENT : C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 1. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (T.S.R.T.C.) and its Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta Bus Depot, filed this writ appeal against order, dated 9.5.2016, in WP No. 29396 of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the removal passed by appellant No. 2 against the respondent. 2. While granting the relief to the respondent, the learned Single Judge has held that the charge itself was vague and the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the charge. The charge framed against the respondent reads as follows: "For having misbehaved and used abusive language against AE(M)/YGT while counselling for your low KMPL of 4.81 (The vehicle average KMPL is 5.38) after completion of your 12.40 YGT-MTKR N/O duty on 27.3.2015 at HSD Oil Bunk while constitutes serious misconduct on your part under Regulation 28(viii & xxxii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963." It is no doubt true that the details of 'abusive language' mentioned in the charge are not contained therein. Therefore, in one way the charge is somewhat vague. However, when the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), against whom the alleged abusive language was used by the respondent, was examined in the domestic enquiry, he stated that when he tried to Counsel the respondent on the low mileage, he defiantly uttered the words "anthe vasthadi", which means it gives only that kind of mileage. When the said officer warned the respondent that the latter will be directed to the Depot Manager, the respondent allegedly replied "cheppuko, emi chesukuntavo chesuko", which means report and do whatever he would like to do. In the enquiry report, it was clearly held that the respondent indeed uttered those words, based on the evidence of the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). To this extent, we do not find any reason to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, based on which the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the respondent. The learned Single Judge, therefore, may not be correct in holding that the charge was not held proved. 3. As regards the quantum of punishment, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, it shocks the judicial conscience. Even if the respondent uttered the words to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) during the counselling, it does not call for a penalty more severe than withholding of one increment. 3. As regards the quantum of punishment, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, it shocks the judicial conscience. Even if the respondent uttered the words to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) during the counselling, it does not call for a penalty more severe than withholding of one increment. The appellants were wholly unjustified in imposing an extreme penalty of removing the respondent from service. Equally, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition in toto. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ appeal is partly allowed, by substituting the penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent with that of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect only. All other reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge are not interfered with. 5. As a sequel to partly allowing the writ appeal, WA MP No. 2114 of 2017 filed by the appellants for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.