ORDER : Battu Devanand, J. 1. The petitioner, a Conductor in the respondent Corporation (Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), filed the present writ petition impugning the Award dated 20.01.2006 in I.D. No. 77 of 2001 passed by the 1st respondent-Labour Court, Guntur (the Labour Court for brevity), confirming the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect imposed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 20.01.2006 besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined as casual conductor in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the 'Corporation' for brevity) in 1999 and later transferred to Governerpet Depot-1. When the petitioner was returning to Railway Station from Vanukuru, at stage No. 9/Penamaluru, a check was held on 23-02-1998. Observing certain irregularities in the ticketing process i.e., while issuing tickets, the petitioner had issued re-issued tickets of Rs. 2/- denomination, which were used in the previous trip at stage No. 11 and accounted in the SR, the Corporation charge sheeted the petitioner. Subsequently, not satisfied with the petitioner's explanation, the Corporation conducted a departmental enquiry, which culminated in the 2nd respondent passing an Order inflicting on the petitioner the major punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said punishment, he preferred an appeal before the Regional Manager on 18-02-1999 and the same was dismissed confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial disputes before the Conciliation Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour by APSRTC Staff and Workers Federation. As there was no amicable settlement, the Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Thereupon, the Labour Court confirmed the punishment of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. Further aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for ASPRTC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award of the Labour Court in confirming the order of the disciplinary authority is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any basis. He further submits that the petitioner has not issued re-issued tickets as alleged in the charge memo and that he issued valid tickets to the passengers and wrong entries have been made in the S.R. due to improper and double printing on the tickets. He further submits that the petitioner has not issued re-issued tickets as alleged in the charge memo and that he issued valid tickets to the passengers and wrong entries have been made in the S.R. due to improper and double printing on the tickets. He further submits that the Labour failed to see that cash has not been counted by the Checking Officials at the time of check. He submits that the labour Court erred in finding that the witness did not admit that the ticket numbers were printed unserially, though in the enquiry, the TTI Sri S.J. Ahmed has stated in the cross examination that printing of ticket numbers were wrongly printed and they were unserial. Finally, he submits that the Labour Court failed to give sufficient reasons while dismissing the case of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 filed Counter while supporting the Order passed by the Labour Court in all aspects. He further submits that at stage No. 9/Penamaluru, a check was exercised by the TTIs on 23.02.1998 at 19.55 hours near Penamaluru X roads and during the check, the checking officials found two passengers were traveling in the bus from Vanukuru to Raghavaiah Park Ex-stages 12 to 3/2 and those two passengers were possessing tickets bearing Nos. 090/132888 to 889 of Rs. 3/- denomination each and 192/783443 to 443 of Rs. 2/- each and that the petitioner collected the requisite fare amount of Rs. 10/- in total from two passengers at Vanukuru itself and that they verified the SR for the account particulars of the said tickets and found that Rs. 2/- denomination tickets were already issued in the earlier trip i.e., 18.10 hours trip at 11th stage as per the SR. 6. He further submits that the checking officials sent a special report to the Depot Manager and basing on the said allegations, the petitioner was kept under suspension on 05.03.1998 and issued the charge sheet. He submits that after giving careful consideration to the explanation submitted by the petitioner and all other evidence available on record, the Corporation passed the impugned Order imposing the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as not on duty. Aggrieved by the said Order, he preferred an appeal before the Regional Manager, Vijayawada, and the said appeal was dismissed on 05.07.1999. Aggrieved by the said Order, he preferred an appeal before the Regional Manager, Vijayawada, and the said appeal was dismissed on 05.07.1999. On reference under Section 10 (1) (C) of Industrial Dispute Act by the Government, a case was taken on file as I.D. No. 77 of 2001 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur and thereupon, the Labour Court confirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority. 7. He further submits that if the check had not taken place, the petitioner would have pocketed the legitimate revenue of the corporation. The punishment on the petitioner was imposed after conducting a detailed enquiry and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Labour Court also confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the Award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to the dismissed. 8. As seen from the Charge sheet dated 05.03.1998, the following charges were levelled against the petitioner. Charge No. 1:: For having issue of used tickets of Rs. 2/- denomination of each 2 i.e., 192/783442 at 443, and collected fare from two passengers who boarded your bus at Vanukur an destinated to Raghavaiah Park, ex-stages 12 to 3/2 while you were conducting vehicle No. AP 9A 703 on route No. 117 S on 23.02.1998 which shows fraudulent motive of re-issuing the said tickets, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963". Charge No. 2: For having failed to maintain the S.R. in proper manner while you were conducting vehicle No. 9 Z 703 in route No. 117 S on 23.2.1998 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963". Charge No. 3: For having failed to observe the rule of ticket issue completion point, without proper account of Rs. 2/- denomination tickets each 2 which you were conducting the vehicle No. AP 9 Z 703 on route No. 117 S on 23.2.1998 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963". 9. It appears that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 01.06.1998 denying the charges levelled against him. However, relying on the statement of TTI-I, the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 11.12.1998 along with enquiry report. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963". 9. It appears that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 01.06.1998 denying the charges levelled against him. However, relying on the statement of TTI-I, the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 11.12.1998 along with enquiry report. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his objections stating that the punishment does not warrant and grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the same, the petitioner was issued with final order imposing the penalty of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and also treating the suspension period as on duty. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 05.07.1999, confirming the punishment order. Thereafter, the dispute has been preferred to the Labour Court in I.D. No. 77 of 2001. The Labour Court passed an Award dated 20.01.2006, confirming the punishment awarded by the Depot Manager. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, the present Writ Petition is filed. 11. As seen from the record, it appears from Ex. M.9, which is the explanation to the Charge sheet submitted by the petitioner stating that on 23.02.1998 check took place and the Checking Officials found Rs. 2/- denomination tickets two in number with two passengers and those tickets were issued at stage No. 12 in combination of Rs. 3/- denomination tickets. As per the petitioner, those tickets were unserially printed and kept in the ticket block. Ex. M.10 is the statement of Sri S.K.J. Ahmed-TTI-I. During his cross examination, he deposed that the petitioner informed him at the time of check that there might have been wrong in the printing of the tickets. 12. In an identical matter, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Pulla Reddy vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah Dist. and Ors. 1997 (2) ALD 558 as and when similar set of facts arose in the said case, the Court opined at paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 as under: "8. 12. In an identical matter, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Pulla Reddy vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah Dist. and Ors. 1997 (2) ALD 558 as and when similar set of facts arose in the said case, the Court opined at paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 as under: "8. However, in my opinion there is one factor which seems to have escaped the consideration of the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court that the tickets issued to those passengers' in the earlier trip could have been reissued to them in the subsequent trip only if it was shown that the Conductor's had collected them back from those passengers in the earlier trip. It is also in explicable how the Conductor could be expected to have the knowledge or information that those very passengers would travel by his bus in the subsequent trip so that the same tickets could be reissued to them. This situation, therefore, raises a doubt in regard to the material which has come on recorded in the form of passengers statements as well as in the form of Conductors statement that the same tickets were reissued to the same passengers in the subsequent trip. 9. As regards non-verification of cash, when a question was put to the Inspector in his cross-examination by the workman the Inspector replied that "we have not checked the bus cash since the bus had to proceed to Dobbudupalli". This is an evasive reply. In my opinion, the Inspector should have himself insisted upon the cash verification which could have put a conclusive seal on the guilt of the workman, but by not doing so the alleged misconduct has become susceptible to an enormity of doubt". 13. The above opinion expressed, as stated supra, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. Under these circumstances, which makes it incumbent upon the Court to take a liberal view and to hold that the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. 15. For the above mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition, is, therefore, partly allowed. The punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect is modified as under: "withholding of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect". 15. For the above mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition, is, therefore, partly allowed. The punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect is modified as under: "withholding of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect". No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.