ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwara Rao, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “……..to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned Proc.No.PA/20(321)/09-HR, dated 19.01.2010 insofar as deferring two increments with cumulative effect, treating the removal period as not on duty for all the purposes and not granting the consequential benefits of continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently the petitioners pray this Hon’ble Court to direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments and treat the out of service period as duty period for all purposes along with all consequential benefits ……”. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and  the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (i) The petitioner joined the service of the respondents Corporation as a Conductor on 07.03.1990 under breadwinner scheme. Subsequently, his services were regularized. While the petitioner was conducting the bus service of the 3rd respondent on 08.06.2009 on route No.1(1-J) Metro Express from Secunderabad Station to Jiyaguda via Gandhi Hospital, the checking officials checked his bus at Stage No.9/8 i.e., Gandhi Hospital and issued the memo alleging as follows :- “1. You have already collected the requisite fare at the boarding point and not issued the tickets to (2) two passengers found alighting without tickets at Gandhi Hospital, stage No.9/8, who boarded at Secunderabad Station stage No.9. 2. You have issued the ticket Nos.777/773190 and 777/773191 of Rs.4/- deno. (E.2) to another passenger by sighting punch who is not related with the alighting passengers. The passenger was travelling in the bus. Confiscated the above tickets for reference.” (ii) The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the above memo on 10.06.2009 stating that he had issued tickets to all the passengers including the passengers in question and they might have thrown the said tickets on the footboard steps while alighting from the bus. After checking the bus, the checking officials had followed in the bus upto stage No.1 i.e., Jiyaguda and framed the case, contrary to the facts after alighting all the passengers from the bus and issued the charge Memo. After checking the bus, the checking officials had followed in the bus upto stage No.1 i.e., Jiyaguda and framed the case, contrary to the facts after alighting all the passengers from the bus and issued the charge Memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had suspended the petitioner from service and issued charge-sheet framing the following charge :- “For having already collected the requisite fare and at the boarding point itself and not issued the tickets to the two passengers found alighting without tickets at Gandhi Hospital, Stage No.9/8 who boarded your bus at Secunderabad Station and you have issued ticket No.777/773190 and 191 of Rs.4/- denomination E2 tickets to another passenger by sighting punch who is not related with the alighting passengers, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” (iii) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above charge on 18.06.2009. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued show- cause notice dated 30.07.2009 proposing to impose the punishment of removal. The petitioner submitted explanation on 13.08.2009 stating that the very charge framed is not sustainable as he was charged under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963 (for short ‘the Regulation’), which deals with issuing of used tickets to the passengers, and there is no allegation that he had issued the used tickets to passengers. However, the 3 rd respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has removed him from service vide proceedings dated 28.08.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 2 nd respondent. The 2 nd respondent while setting aside the order of the 3 rd respondent, passed the order dated 19.01.2010, observing as follows :- “On perusal of his service record, it is observed that he was appointed as Casual Conductor in the year 1990 and he was regularized in the year 2003. The appellant conductor was twice involved in cash and tickets irregularities earlier also. Considering his service of 12 years, and distance travelled by ticket less passengers is only ½ stage, I am inclined to take a lenient view based on benefit of doubt and on humanitarian grounds and given him an opportunity to continue in service. The appellant conductor was twice involved in cash and tickets irregularities earlier also. Considering his service of 12 years, and distance travelled by ticket less passengers is only ½ stage, I am inclined to take a lenient view based on benefit of doubt and on humanitarian grounds and given him an opportunity to continue in service. Therefore, the orders of DM/BKP are set aside and the following orders are issued: (i) The petitioner shall be reinstated into service as Conductor Gr.II duly imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of TWO YEARS which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments. (ii) The period from the date of removal till date of his reporting for duty at the unit posted on reinstatement shall be treated as "NOT ON DUTY" for all purposes viz., PF, Gratuity, Leave, Increment, Promotion, Seniority etc., 3. He should pay fresh security deposit and produce valid conductor licence and also produce "No dues certificate" from the Depot Manager, BKP depot. He should report to the Depot Manager Midhani Depot within seven days from the date of receipt of these proceedings, failing which the order of reinstatement stands cancelled.” (iv) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order with regard to imposing of punishment of defermental of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and treating the period of removal till reporting to duty as “not on duty”. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the 2 nd respondent passed the impugned order based on benefit of doubt and on humanitarian grounds. When the benefit of doubt is taken into consideration, the 2nd respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order imposing conditions as stated supra. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that Regulation 28(xxiii) of the Regulations is not applicable to the petitioner, as there is no question of re-issuing of tickets and even in the charge also, there is no mention of reissuance of tickets by the petitioner. But, simply stated that the petitioner issued two tickets of Rs.4/- denomination i.e., E2 tickets to another passenger by sighting punch, from which it is evident that the petitioner has not given re-issued tickets and only issued tickets. But, simply stated that the petitioner issued two tickets of Rs.4/- denomination i.e., E2 tickets to another passenger by sighting punch, from which it is evident that the petitioner has not given re-issued tickets and only issued tickets. Further, the 3 rd respondent passed the removal order against the Regulations. Therefore, passing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 by the 2 nd respondent imposing certain conditions is illegal and arbitrary. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have not denied the contentions made by the petitioner. 8. In support of his contentions with regard to the benefit of doubt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS , [(2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 175] , wherein the Apex Court held as follows :- “Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used. 29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither “proved” nor “disproved.” 9. A fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither “proved” nor “disproved.” 9. In the above case, the Apex Court held that the expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honourably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. Though the aid of the expression “benefit of doubt” is taken with regard to the criminal case, in the instant case, with regard to the disciplinary proceedings, the revisional authority observed that a lenient view based on benefit of doubt and on humanitarian grounds were taken into consideration. In the instant case, once the revisional authority came to a conclusion to take a lenient view based on the benefit of doubt and on humanitarian grounds, the revisional authority ought not to have passed the impugned order imposing conditions. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting the impugned order and allowing the writ petition. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the following observation made by the 2nd respondent under the impugned order. “In the spot explanation given in charge memo, the appellant conductor stated that the bus was with 60 passengers. He had given tickets to all passengers. Delay to give tickets to the two passengers is due to heavy speed of the bus as it is metro express bus. He was unable to give that tickets and he thought that the alighted passengers were related to one travelling lady passengers. Hence he asked that lady passenger to take the tickets to hand over to that passengers. Due to rush a little late happened in issuing tickets. Since it was metro express arrived early to Gandhi Hospital. In the special report, the TTls stated that they found two passengers alighting without tickets at Gandhi Hospital, stage No.9/8 who boarded at Sec'bad, Stage No.9 from whom the conductor had already collected the requisite fare at boarding point itself and not issued tickets. The conductor seen them who were exercising alighting checks. Hence, he hurriedly sight punched two tickets No.777/773190 and 191 of Rs.4/- denomination each two tickets and handed over them to one of the passengers travelling in the bus. When asked the alighting passengers about tickets, they said that the Conductor had not given them tickets though they paid the requisite fare. Hence, he hurriedly sight punched two tickets No.777/773190 and 191 of Rs.4/- denomination each two tickets and handed over them to one of the passengers travelling in the bus. When asked the alighting passengers about tickets, they said that the Conductor had not given them tickets though they paid the requisite fare. "They have also inquired the passenger, whether there was any relationship with the alighting passengers, to whom the conductor had handed over the tickets which were sight punched. The said passenger to whom the conductor had given tickets stated that she does not know them". So they have taken statement of the co-passenger as well as the statement of ticketless passengers who have alighted without tickets at Gandhi Hospital. In the explanation to the charge memo, the appellant conductor stated that the allegations are contrary to the facts. His signature was taken in force without allowing him to read. He issued all tickets correctly including the alighting passengers in question. He issued about 32 tickets in between stage No.9 to 9/8which distance can be covered within few minutes. He had not seen the TTIs and not sight punched the tickets. The bus was carrying about 60 passengers at the time of check. Where as in the explanation to the charge sheet the appellant stated that in his presence no person had given statement either in Hindi or English and they were not confronted to him.” 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the version putforth by the petitioner at the first instance is changed in the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo. So, two different versions are putforth by the petitioner and the same cannot be accepted. Further, In one place, the petitioner is saying 32 passengers though the total number of passengers are 37 (35 + 2 FC). 12. In the counter affidavit also, the respondents have submitted that they have also enquired the passenger, whether there was any relationship with the alighting passengers, to whom the conductor had handedover the tickets, which were sight punched. The said passenger to whom the conductor has given tickets stated that she does not know them. They have taken the statement of the co-passenger as well as the statement of ticket less passengers who have alighted without tickets at Gandhi Hospital. The said passenger to whom the conductor has given tickets stated that she does not know them. They have taken the statement of the co-passenger as well as the statement of ticket less passengers who have alighted without tickets at Gandhi Hospital. The revisional authority, after considering the evidence available on record and after hearing both sides, rightly passed the impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the petitioner contended that the respondents have wrongly framed charge under Regulation 28(xxiii) of the Regulations. The charge framed is for re-issue of the tickets only, whereas in the charge framed by the respondents, nowhere they stated that the conductor re-issued tickets and also, at the same time, there is no mention of issuance of fresh tickets and simply stated that the petitioner issued tickets. So, there is an ambiguity in framing of charge itself and there is no clarity whether the petitioner re-issued tickets or fresh tickets. Further, the revisional authority has taken the aid and assistance of the benefit of doubt and on humanitarian grounds passed the impugned order. Once the benefit of doubt is expressed by the revisional authority, imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years is not tenable. In the counter, though the respondents have stated with regard to recording of the explanation given by the co-passenger, they have not denied the contention made by the petitioner. 14. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner to treat the period from the date of removal till date of his reporting to duty as ‘on duty’ cannot be considered for the reason that from the date of removal till the date of his reporting duty, the petitioner has not attended the duty and, therefore, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ is applicable in this case. Further, being a responsible conductor, while issuing the tickets, the petitioner has to follow the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent Corporation in strict manner without any deviation of the said Rules and Regulations. 15. Further, being a responsible conductor, while issuing the tickets, the petitioner has to follow the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent Corporation in strict manner without any deviation of the said Rules and Regulations. 15. In view of the above observations, this Writ Petition is partly allowed while setting aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent insofar as it relates to imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years, which shall have the effect of postponing future increments, and the remaining portion of the impugned order holds good. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.