ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This writ petition is filed to declare the review show cause notice No:Steno/19(64)/2018-DVM:ADB, dated 24.12.2018 issued by the 2 nd respondent enhancing the penalty of deferment of increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on future increments to that of removal from service, as arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short, “the Regulations”). 2. Heard A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri U. Shanti Bushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was performing duty on Bus bearing No. TS 01Z 0114 on route from Hyderabad to Adilabad, one passenger travelling up to Adilabad has purchased Ticket No.A21449 by paying fare of Rs.523/- and luggage Ticket No.A21450 for 6 units of luggage of Ghobinara by paying Rs.84/-. When the bus reached Gudihathnoor, a surprise check was conducted and basing on the report submitted by TTIs, the 3rd respondent issued charge sheet dated 19.07.2018 alleging that the petitioner allowed unaccompanied luggage by collecting Rs.316/- and placed him petitioner under suspension on the same day. On 23.07.2018, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet. However, without considering the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered and basing on the enquiry report dated 22.10.2018 and after considering the objections filed by the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent issued order dated 15.11.2018 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on his future increments and placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 15.11.2018 duly treating the period as not on duty for all purposes and directed him to report before the 2 nd respondent for further posting orders. Accordingly, on 16.11.2018, the petitioner reported before the 2 nd respondent for further posting orders, but the 2 nd respondent without issuing any posting order and without paying the salary to the petitioner, issued the impugned review show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 enhancing the penalty of deferment of increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on future increments to that of removal from service and the petitioner was directed to submit reply within one week. 4. Learned counsel further submits that without there being any appeal filed by the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent cannot interfere with the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent. As per Regulation 29 of the Regulations, the authority higher than the appellate authority can revise any order under disciplinary proceedings and as per the said regulation, the power of revision lies with Regional Manager, Adilabad, who is the higher authority to the 2 nd respondent, and the power of review lies with the Corporation and Executive Directors in cases of employees where penalty of removal was imposed. Therefore, the impugned show cause issued by the 2 nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 5. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of this Court in W.P.Nos.15528 of 2007 and 11131 of 1983, dated 01.10.2018 and 19.11.1987 respectively and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vikram Singh Rana vs. State of M.P., 2007 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 293 (M.P.). , dated 20.04.2006. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that while the petitioner was working as TIM Driver of Adilabad Depot committed cash and ticket irregularities while performing duty on the route Hyderabad to Adilabad, on 04.07.2018, having collected an amount of Rs.400/- from a person who loaded 4 bags containing cabbage saplings at Mahathma Gandhi Bus Station, Hyderabad, issuing the luggage ticket worth Rs.84 vide TIM Ticket No.TN-A21450, pocketed Rs.316/- and kept luggage ticket with unknown passenger. Thus, the petitioner allowed unaccompanied luggage besides defrauding an amount of Rs.316/-. This was detected at Gudihathnoor Stage No.2/1 and a charge memo was issued. Basing on the said charge memo, the 3 rd respondent issued charge sheet dated 19.07.2018 placing the petitioner under suspension. Thus, the petitioner allowed unaccompanied luggage besides defrauding an amount of Rs.316/-. This was detected at Gudihathnoor Stage No.2/1 and a charge memo was issued. Basing on the said charge memo, the 3 rd respondent issued charge sheet dated 19.07.2018 placing the petitioner under suspension. He further submits that having not convinced with the explanation dated 23.07.2018 submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, domestic enquiry was ordered and enquiry report was submitted on 22.10.2018 for which the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 03.11.2018. Thereafter, punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on his future increments was imposed by the 3 rd respondent vide order dated 15.11.2018. Further, on the advise on the Regional Manager, Adilabad, vide letter dated 17.12.2018, the 2 nd respondent, reviewed the case and found that the petitioner committed irregularity of collecting an amount of Rs.400/- and issuing ticket worth Rs.84/- only as more serious and grave in nature and the same has been proved beyond reasonable doubt during the course of enquiry and felt that the action initiated by the disciplinary authority is not in commensuration with the offence. Therefore, the 2nd respondent proposed to enhance the earlier penalty of deferment of annual increment of one year to that of removal from service. Accordingly, the impugned review show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 was issued for enhancement of penalty. He further submits that as per Regulation 3(IV) of the Regulations, the Divisional Manager is the competent authority and therefore, the impugned review show cause notice issued by the 2 nd respondent is in accordance with the said Regulations. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and a perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that admittedly, after conducting domestic enquiry basing on the enquiry report dated 22.10.2018 and on considering the explanation/objections dated 03.11.2018 submitted by the petitioner and the entire evidence available on record, the disciplinary authority has passed order, dated 15.11.2018. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and a perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that admittedly, after conducting domestic enquiry basing on the enquiry report dated 22.10.2018 and on considering the explanation/objections dated 03.11.2018 submitted by the petitioner and the entire evidence available on record, the disciplinary authority has passed order, dated 15.11.2018. The relevant paragraphs of the said order reads as under: “After giving careful consideration to the explanation submitted by you and entire evidences available on records together with the circumstances of the case, I have come to conclusion that the charge leveled against you stands proved for which the penalty of deferment of your annual increment for a period of one (01) years which shall have its effect on future increments is fit and proper to be imposed on you. I, therefore, hereby order that your annual increment when next falls due be deferred for a period of one (01) year which shall have its effect on your future increments. Please acknowledge the receipt.” 8. From the above, it is clear that on considering the entire evidence and explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority thought it fit and proper to impose punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on future increments, which is a major punishment. Further, it is evident from the impugned review show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 that the said notice was issued on the advice of the Regional Manager, Adilabad, vide letter dated 17.12.2018. 9. It is pertinent to refer to Regulation 10(iv) of the Regulations, which reads as under: “ Regulation 10: Authority competent to impose penalties: i) The Corporation may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 8 on employee. ii) Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (1), any of the penalties specified in regulation 8 may be imposed on an employee by the appointing authority or any other authority authorized by a regulation or resolution of the Corporation subject to such conditions and limitations. If any as may be specified. Explanation: The expression appointing authority means the authority competent to make substantive appointment to the post held by the employee for the time being. If any as may be specified. Explanation: The expression appointing authority means the authority competent to make substantive appointment to the post held by the employee for the time being. iii) Wherein any case a higher authority has imposed or declined to impose a penalty under this regulation, a lower authority shall have no jurisdiction to proceed under his regulation in respect of the same case. (iv) The fact that a lower authority has imposed or declined to impose a penalty in any case shall not debar a higher authority from exercising its jurisdiction under this regulation in respect of the same case.” 10. In Vikram Singh Rana’s case (supra) , the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held as under: “9. In the present case, petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector who was punished by respondent No.3 in exercise of the disciplinary powers. He has preferred an appeal as per Clause 262 of the M.P. Police Regulations to the immediate superior, i.e., respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has passed the final order on 18.02.99 in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. After passing the final order, such appellate authority has issued the show-cause notice Annexure A-3 and the notice of proposed penalty Annexure A-4 in exercise of the suo motu revisional jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case wherein, penalty is ordered to the officer of the rank of Inspector is under challenged. 10. The power of suo motu revision can be exercised by any authority superior to the authority making the order, whether original or appellate. Thus, respondent No.2, who has passed the appellate order, cannot exercise the power of suo motu revision, to his own order. The power of suo motu revision of the order or appellate authority i.e., respondent No.2, can be exercised by the authority superior to him, and not by the appellate authority itself, as per the requirement of Clause (1) of Para 270 of the M.P. Police Regulation. It is however seen from the record that Annexure a-3 is a show-cause notice issued in exercise of suo motu powers by the appellate authority. Bare reading of Clause 270(1), it is apparent that the authority who is exercising the suo motu powers of revision must be superior to the authority, making the order. It is however seen from the record that Annexure a-3 is a show-cause notice issued in exercise of suo motu powers by the appellate authority. Bare reading of Clause 270(1), it is apparent that the authority who is exercising the suo motu powers of revision must be superior to the authority, making the order. In the present case, respondent No.3 has passed the order which was challenged before the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.2. The appellate authority i.e., respondent No.2 has passed the final order on 18.02.99, thereafter he has no jurisdiction to invoke the power under Clause 270 (1) of the Police Regulations. Clause 270(2) of the M.P. Police Regulation deals to those cases in which an application is made on behalf of the person against whom the order has been passed. On the application of such persons Final Appellate Authority can entertain the revision assailing the validity of the order passed either original or in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 11. In view of the specific provisions under Clauses 91) and (2) of Para 270 of the M.P, Police Regulations, it is apparent that either suo motu power of the revision or on an application of the person aggrieved, the authority should be superior from the authority making the order. Thus, the intention of the legislature is apparent from the wording of the language of Clauses (1) and (2) of Para 270 of the M.P, Police Regulation. The revisional authority exercising the jurisdiction ought to be superior or final appellate authority, for the purposes of Para 270 Clauses (1) and (92) of the M.P. Police Regulation. Those authorities are required to pass the orders in strict observance of Clauses (3) and (4) of Para 270 of the Regulation. In this case, appellate authority has issued the show- cause notice, who is not superior to the authority making the order, therefore, show-cause notice issued by such authority in exercise of suo motu power of revision, is out of his competence.” In Barun Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal, W.P.S.T.No.125 of 213, dt. In this case, appellate authority has issued the show- cause notice, who is not superior to the authority making the order, therefore, show-cause notice issued by such authority in exercise of suo motu power of revision, is out of his competence.” In Barun Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal, W.P.S.T.No.125 of 213, dt. 26.08.2013 the Calcutta High Court held as under: “Going by this well accepted principle, the proceedings relating to the past conduct of the petitioner cannot come within the expression "proceedings of any case" within Regulation 884 of P.R.B. By considering the proceedings relating to the past conduct of the petitioner, the revisional authority acted on extraneous materials and therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the revisional authority is without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority imposed the major punishment upon accepting the findings of the enquiry officer. The respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police while exercising the revisional power did not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner herein. The said Deputy Inspector General of Police only disagreed with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and enhanced the said punishment by substituting his own views with regard to the final order of punishment notwithstanding the fact that the disciplinary authority also imposed major punishment. Which particular punishment should be passed cannot be a subject matter of revision when there is no failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to exercise his jurisdiction and authority in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and imposing the punishment. The revisional authority might have his own views with regard to the quantum of punishment but the same cannot be substituted when there is no failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to discharge his due duties and responsibilities in exercising the authority vested in him under the Rules. The findings of the revisional authority in the present case is totally perverse since the said respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police while exercising his revisional power failed to appreciate that there was no failure on the part of the disciplinary authority in conducting the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the petitioner and awarding major punishment in accordance with law. The revisional authority cannot substitute his own views in place of the disciplinary authority even though there was no failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to exercise his authority and power. The revisional authority cannot substitute his own views in place of the disciplinary authority even though there was no failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to exercise his authority and power. The respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police being the revisional authority should have confined himself to the decision making process and he had no scope to differ with the disciplinary authority specially when the said disciplinary authority passed the final order of punishment upon accepting the finding of the enquiry officer about the charges levelled against the petitioner herein. In absence of any procedural illegality and/or irregularity in the matter of conducting the departmental proceedings, there was no scope for the revisional authority to exercise the revisional power which has been done erroneously in the present case. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, failed to take note of the illegality and/or irregularity committed by the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police while exercising the revisional power. The limited scope and power of the revisional authority should have been appreciated by the learned Tribunal while deciding the application filed by the petitioner herein. The learned Tribunal did not notice that the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police exceeded his authority and jurisdiction in enhancing the punishment and dismissing the petitioner from service by exercising the revisional power in terms of Regulation 884.” In M. Balapeer vs. APSRTC, rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad , [W.P.No.11131 of 1983, dt. 19.11.1983] , the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: “The question, therefore, is whether an order passed favourable to an employee by the original authority or the appellate authority, could the reviewing authority or the higher authority review and revise such an order. Though Sri Haranath, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has strenuously contended that the higher authority does have jurisdiction and power to review against the order passed by the appellate authority and revise the penalty, I am afraid, on the language used in the Regulation, such a power cannot be inferred or interpreted to inhere. As already seen, the higher authority is given power to review the order of the disciplinary authority – be it original authority or appellate authority. As already seen, the higher authority is given power to review the order of the disciplinary authority – be it original authority or appellate authority. But, when it is intended that it should be treated as if it is an appeal filed by the delinquent employee, it necessarily postulates that if an order adverse to the delinquent is passed despite the fact that no appeal has been filed by him within the specified period, the appellate authority or higher authority is competent to review the order only beneficial or favourable to the delinquent employee. But, if they want to review the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority favourable to the delinquent officer, then this review power could be availed of, on the language so couched. But if it could be used adverse to the delinquent, it does not empower the authority for diverse reasons. The reviewing authority cannot pass an order treating it to be an appeal by the delinquent. There is no opportunity to the delinquent is provided to oppose the action or to justify the order to be reviewed. Under those circumstances, the action taken by the Divisional Manager on December 3, 1983 is without any authority of law.” 11. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the punishment order dated 15.11.2018 imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e., respondent No.3. Further, admittedly, the impugned show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 was issued by respondent No.2 on the advice of the Regional Manager, Adilabad, who is the revisional authority herein. 12. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by various High Courts referred to above and having regard to the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned review show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 issued for enhancement of penalty from deferment of annual increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on future increments to that of removal from service by respondent No.2, is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the review show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 issued by the 2 nd respondent.