ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, who confirmed the order dated 02.09.2005 passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Heard Sri A. Thirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned standing counsel for TGSRTC. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner was working as a Conductor and was attached to the depot of the 1st respondent. On 15-3-2005, while the petitioner was proceeding as a Conductor on bus bearing No.5660 on route Siddipet to Vemulawada, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Stage No.9/10 at 11.15 a.m, and issued a charge memo to the petitioner framing two charges. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge memo. Not satisfied with the expiation submitted by the petitioner, Respondent No.1 issued suspension order and on the same day, issued charge-sheet dated 22.03.2005 framing the following three (3) charges. “CHARGE No.1: “For having failed to observe the rule “Issue and start” on 15-3-2005 while you were conducting bus NO.5660 on the route Vemulawada at stage No.9/10 which constitutes to mis-conduct vide Regulation No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” CHARGE No.2: For having failed to issue tickets to two passengers who are found alighting without tickets at Indiranagar (Stage No.9/10) who boarded your bus at Siricilla near Katta even-after collecting requisite fare of Rs.3/- each total Rs.6/- at the boarding point itself hence obtained TPTs No.341/040417 to 418 of Rs.3/- each while you were conducting with bus No.5660 on 15-3-2005 on the route Siddipet – Vemulawada which constitutes to mis- conduct under Regulation No.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” CHARGE No.3: For having failed to co-operate with the checking officials at the time of check and created nuisance in front of travelling passengers and took lot of time to write your statement and to counter- sign on the passenger statement on 15-3-2005 at stage No.9/10 on the route Siddipet-Vemulawada while performing duty with bus No.5660, which constitutes to mis-conduct under Regulations No.28(xvii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” (b) Respondent No.1 has conducted a domestic enquiry and raised the suspension and directed the petitioner to report before the Divisional Manager, Sangareddy, for further posting, vide order, dated 02.09.2005. At the same time, the 1 st respondent passed order dated 02.09.2005 deferring the petitioner’s annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty. (c) Aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Medak Division and the same was rejected on 10.05.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before respondent No.2 and the same was also rejected on 20.06.2007. Challenging the order, dated 20.06.2007, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the checking officials stopped the bus at Stage No.9/10 at 11.15 a.m, and prevented the petitioner from enquiring, collecting the fare, and issuing tickets. Although the concerned passengers clearly informed the checking officials regarding their boarding point and his intention to collect the fare, the officials threatened both the passengers and the petitioner, and subsequently framed a charge memo against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the allegation that the passengers boarded near the lake and paid Rs.3/- each is false, fabricated, and contrary to the statements of the passengers. The checking officials failed to record any co-passengers’ statements. As the charges framed against the petitioner were false and baseless, he protested while receiving the charge-memo. When the petitioner attempted to submit spot explanation voluntarily, the officials prevented him and left the place. The charge memo contains only two charges and that charge-sheet was issued framing three charges. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges levelled against him, the 1st respondent suspended the petitioner and issued charge-sheet to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action respondent No.1 in deferring the petitioner’s annual increments for two years, treating the suspension period as not on duty vide proceedings dated 02.09.2005, without furnishing the relevant documents and without issuing a show-cause notice is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, and in violation of CC&A Regulations of APSRTC. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority erroneously confirmed the order passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 20.06.2007 and allow the writ petition. 9. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority erroneously confirmed the order passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 20.06.2007 and allow the writ petition. 9. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The petitioner was working as a Conductor and was attached to the 1st respondent’s Depot. On 15.03.2005, while he was performing duty on bus bearing No.5660 on Siddipet–Vemulawada route, when a check was conducted at Stage No.9/10 at 11:15 a.m. it was found that the petitioner had violated the rules and failed to issue tickets to two passengers, despite collecting Rs.3/- each as fare. The petitioner refused to attest the passengers’ statements and caused delay, resulting in inconvenience. Therefore, the checking officials obtained the statement/attestation of the jeep driver and submitted a special report to the Depot Manager. The petitioner acknowledged the check documents under protest without offering any reason. (b) Based on the irregularities enumerated in the charge memo, a special report was submitted by the checking officials and the explanation was offered from the petitioner and that the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. After reviewing the report, the Depot Manager, by order dated 02.09.2005, imposed the punishment of deferment of annual increments for two years with cumulative effect. The punishment imposed by the 1 st respondent was proportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner. Further, both the appellate authority and the reviewing authority confirmed the order passed by the 1st respondent. (c) The checking officials detected the irregularity of the petitioner and recorded passengers’ statements, but the petitioner made delay in attesting the statements, which caused inconvenience to the checking officials. The claim of the petitioner with regard to heavy rush is denied, as the check report MTD 43/R No. 2115610 shows that only 34 passengers, including two tickets less i.e., much below the seating capacity of the bus. The allegation of the petitioner that the checking officials fabricated a false case against him is incorrect and baseless. 10. The claim of the petitioner with regard to heavy rush is denied, as the check report MTD 43/R No. 2115610 shows that only 34 passengers, including two tickets less i.e., much below the seating capacity of the bus. The allegation of the petitioner that the checking officials fabricated a false case against him is incorrect and baseless. 10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the 1 st respondent considered each and every aspect and by taking a lenient view rightly imposed the punishment against the petitioner and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that, based on the charges framed against the petitioner and the enquiry report, the 1 st respondent came to a conclusion and passed the order dated 02.09.2005, imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years, which will have an effect on future increments, besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. 11. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without issuing any show-cause notice, the entire proceedings were completed, and the imposition of the above punishment by the 1 st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Further, the appellate authority and the revisional authority erroneously confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority without considering the contentions raised by him. 12. In the counter affidavit also, there is no explanation with regard to the petitioner’s contention, and the respondents, without issuing any show-cause notice, proceeded with the enquiry and passed the punishment order. 13. Though the petitioner’s actions indicate negligence while observing the rule issue and start on 15.03.2005, the authorities cannot impose punishment, without following the due procedure. Basing on the enquiry report only, without issuing any show-cause notice, the imposition of punishment cannot be sustained. 14. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.2110 of 2008, dated 20.10.2010. In the said case, a similar issue arose, where punishment was awarded without issuing a show-cause notice. Basing on the enquiry report only, without issuing any show-cause notice, the imposition of punishment cannot be sustained. 14. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.2110 of 2008, dated 20.10.2010. In the said case, a similar issue arose, where punishment was awarded without issuing a show-cause notice. This Court, in the said case, relied upon its earlier order in Kottapati Jayachandra Reddy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadiri Depot, Anantapur District , [2005 (6) ALD 247] , wherein a learned Judge of this Court while dealing with a similar fact situation interfered with the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect on the ground that no show-cause notice was issued with regard to the proposed punishment after conduct of the departmental enquiry. 15. In the case on hand also, without issuing any show-cause notice, the 1 st respondent imposed the above punishment. Before imposing punishment, proper enquiry is required. But, in the present case, without conducting proper enquiry, the respondents imposed the excessive punishment. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the respondent authorities is liable to be modified insofar as ‘the deferment of annual increments for a period of two years, which will have effect on future increments’, to that of punishment of ‘withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect. Insofar as treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes holds good. 16. Accordingly, the punishment of ‘deferment of annual increments for a period of two years, which will have effect on future increments, besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes’, is modified to that of punishment of ‘withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect, besides treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. The authorities shall accordingly give effect to the modified punishment, compute the petitioner’s retirement benefits in accordance therewith. 17. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.