ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “.......to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the Orders No. 01/39902/2020/KKD dated 14.09.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent and which was confirmed by orders dated 20.02.2021 by the 2nd respondent is illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Circular No. PD/01/2019 dated 01.01.2019 and violation of Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and pas.....” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a contract driver on 11.09.2010 attached to Kakinada depot. Later he was transferred to Ramachandrapuram Depot. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.09.2014 and attached to Kakinada depot. Since the date of his joining the petitioner discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of his superiors, without any blemish record. It is stated that on 05.07.2020, the petitioner was in service No. 2591 kakinada to Vijayawada the bus schedule to depart at 16:30 hours. Since less occupancy in the bus OPRS incharge informed the petitioner to operate the service at 17:00 hours instead of 16:30 hours. The petitioner obliged his instructions requested him to mention the time in SR book of bus enable him to show the passengers already occupied the bus and to avoid the further consequences in delay in running the service. For which the OPRS in-charge inclined to mention in the re-schedule departure time in SR Book of bus. Having no other go, the petitioner left as per reschedule. But at utter surprise of the petitioner, he was called for enquiry on 6.7.2020 asked him about the incident. Even though the petitioner explained the said issue, the 3rd respondent without considering the oral explanation of the petitioner, a charge sheet was issued. For which, the petitioner made his written explanation on 5.9.2020. Even without examining the merits and demerits of the allegation in routine manner arrived at conclusion that the allegation made under charge was proved and issued final order and imposed punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide order dated 14.9.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and revision before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manger, Rajahmundry and before the 4th respondent. Both the appeal and review applications were rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and revision before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manger, Rajahmundry and before the 4th respondent. Both the appeal and review applications were rejected. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3. While denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the Dy. Superintendent(T)/OPRS In-charge, Kakinada has reported that the petitioner, reported to the OPRS Counter on 05.07.2020 to collect Auxiliary way bill to the service No. 2591, 16.30 (KKDVJA). At that time OPRS In-Charge Sri S. Swamy, Dy. Supdt(T), Kakinada has advised to the driver to departure his service bus at 17.00 hrs., instead of schedule time of 16.30 hrs. Due to very poor seat occupancy of his service bus and there are no vacant seats in the very next service of 17.00 hrs. Kakinada Kurnool & 17.30 hrs. Kakinada Proddutur services on that day. Then he asked Sri S. Swamy, E.105197, Dy. Supdt(T) to write the late time in SR to show the same to the passengers, but the OPRS In-charge has followed the instructions of the higher-ups and he replied to the petitioner, that it is not necessary to write the late time in SR, hence there are no passengers in the bus and the decision of the OPRS In-charge is also to convenience the un- reserved passengers who intend to board the 17.00 hrs and 17.30hrs. services but, the said driver again approached him and shouted loudly and demanded him to write the time in SR for late departure of the service and commented him and the Supervisors as “NEEVU RETIREMENT KI DAGGARALO UNNAVU NEE SANGATHI CHUSTANU” NENU LORRY DRIVING CHESUKUNTANU. MEE SUPERVISORLU AND OFFICERS ADDUKKU TINTARU.” Based on the above allegation, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner and he acknowledged and submitted his explanation which is found not proper. MEE SUPERVISORLU AND OFFICERS ADDUKKU TINTARU.” Based on the above allegation, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner and he acknowledged and submitted his explanation which is found not proper. After giving careful consideration to the explanation submitted by the petitioner in connection with the charge sheet and other evidences available on record together with the circumstances of the case on both sides as per the provisional conclusion, that the charges leveled against him stands proved beyond doubt, for which the penalty to defer his annual increment when next falls due for a period of 01(ONE) year which shall not have effect on future increments is fit and proper to be imposed on him. 4. Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri T. Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that the 1st respondent issued a Circular vide PDO1/2019, dated 01.01.2019 reviewed the punishments being awarded in the APSRTC, in order to maintain uniformity, transparency case of security and trust-among the employees. Under the circular, for imposing minor punishments, no need of domestic enquiry for imposing minor punishment. He further submits that under Category-3 the minor punishment prescribed only sinecure preceded by charge sheet under Regulation 8.1.1 also stipulates the same, wherein now the punishment imposed by the respondent deferment of annual increment is harsh and contrary to their owner circulars. The punishment imposed against the petitioner comes under the category of minor punishment under Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees (conduct) year Regulations 1963 the petitioner would suffer one year increment without there being any fault of the petitioner. Even assuming the charge was proved the 3rd respondent ought not to impose the punishment other than prescribed. 6. The punishment imposed against the petitioner comes under the category of minor punishment under Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees (conduct) year Regulations 1963 the petitioner would suffer one year increment without there being any fault of the petitioner. Even assuming the charge was proved the 3rd respondent ought not to impose the punishment other than prescribed. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 301 wherein it was held that: A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amlendu Ghosh v. District Traffic Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Katiyar, AIR 1960 SC 992 , held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held. 21. Similarly in Chiman Lal Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854 , a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex-parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under: “.......There must, therefore, be no confusion between the two inquiries and it is only when the Government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishment indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that Article, nor prior to that.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, submits that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 8. Per contra, learned Standing counsel also while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Dy. Chief Traffic Manger(T), Rajamahendravaram against the punishment order and the same was rejected by the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (T) vide proceedings No. PA/20(77)/20:Dy.CTM/RJY, dated 26.12.2020. Again the petitioner preferred review petition to the Regional Manager, Rajamahendravaram and the same was also rejected by the Regional Manager, Rajamahendravaram vide proceedings No. PA/20(26)/2021:RM:EG, dated 20.02.2021. At this juncture, the petitioner has not put forth any fresh and valid points to interfere with the orders passed by Depot Manager, Kakinada and Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, East Godavari. He further submits that as per the Circular No. 01/2019, dated 01.01.2019 vide Para No. 9.1 Insubordination with superior employees and the petitioner was eligible for Minor punishment and there is no need to conduct domestic enquiry as per the above circular guidelines and imposed punishment for Deferment of increment for one year without cumulative effect preceded by charge sheet duly following stipulated disciplinary procedure. Therefore, since there are no legal grounds in the present petition to interfere with and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. Perused the material on record. 10. On hearing the submissions and on perusing the material on record, this Court observed that, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the purpose of holding a preliminary enquiry in respect of a particular alleged mis-conduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know, as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. 11. 11. In the present case, the petitioner was issued charge sheet on the allegation that while the petitioner was in service No. 2591 Kakinada to Vijayawada on 05.07.2020 the bus schedule to depart at 16.30 hrs since less occupancy in the bus OPRS In-charge informed the petitioner to operate the service at 17.00 hrs instead of 16.30 hrs. Later, the petitioner asked him to mention the time in SR book of bus enable him to show the passengers already occupied the bus and to avoid further consequences in delay in running the service, but it was denied by Sri Swamy and shouted loudly in the presence of SM, Controller and other staff. Even though the above allegations are not proved, but the Dy. Depot Manager, Kakinada has passed impugned order deferment of increment for one year without cumulative effect preceded by charge sheet duly following stipulated disciplinary procedure. 12. On perusing the material on record and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, it is evident that the evidence recorded in the preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice. 13. Under the above circumstances and by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order vide No. 01/399(02)/2020-KKD, dated 14.09.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back with a direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.