In Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Karzenoski, 96 Pa. Commw. 608, 508 A.2d 618 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), PennDOT suspended a mechanic's inspection privileges for one year for furnishing a sticker without an inspection. On de novo appeal, the trial court credited the mechanic's testimony that he performed the inspection but failed to affix the sticker as required. PennDOT then requested the court to modify the suspension to three months for performing a faulty inspection. The trial court declined, noting PennDOT did not charge the mechanic with performing a faulty inspection and thus the imposition of a suspension for faulty inspection would violate his due process rights. On appeal to our Court, PennDOT challenged the trial court's refusal to modify the suspension. In reversing, the Court held the trial court erred in refusing PennDOT's request. Speaking through Judge Blatt, this Court recognized that the due process required in administrative proceedings "is afforded when the 'accused' is informed with reasonable certainty of the substance of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare his defense." 508 A.2d at 621. The Court stated: While we appreciate the trial court's due process concerns, we do not believe that the appellee's right of notice would have been infringed by granting the Department's request for modification. . . . Our review of the record here satisfies us that the faulty inspection charge arises from the same underlying conduct as the original charges and that it is not of a different kind than those charges, but merely of a different degree. We believe, therefore, that the faulty inspection offense is simply a lesser included offense in the charge of furnishing a sticker without an inspection. Consequently, we conclude that the appellee was adequately informed that the charge of faulty inspection could possibly be brought against him and that a modification of his suspension to comport with his admitted violation was appropriate. 508 A.2d at 621.