THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4521 OF 2011 O R D E R: The writ petitioner, who is engaged as a contract driver, has been proceeded against as a measure of discipline by the Depot Manager, Koilakuntla, Kurnool District, for unauthorized absence between 04.02.2009 and 07.02.2099 and from 16.07.2009 to 31.08.2009, i.e., the date on which he passed the order terminating his contract of employment and thus bringing to an end his employment relationship. The writ petitioner was engaged as a contract driver in the month of April, 2007. For the period of absence unauthorizedly caused by him between 04.02.2009 and 07.02.2009, a charge sheet was laid and it was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of the Depot for conducting an enquiry. The Deputy Superintendent has finalized his report and filed it on 17th August 2009. He has dealt with the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 16.07.2009 also though the same does not form part of the charge. Based upon the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent, the Depot Manager passed orders on 31st August 2009 terminating the contract of employment of the petitioner. The writ petitioner submitted an appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager of Kurnool Region on 6th January, 2010 against the said orders. On the ground that the same has been submitted beyond the permissible time limit, it was rejected by the Deputy Traffic Manager on 20.04.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner went before the Regional Manager, Kurnool Region by way of review petition on 26.06.2010. Entertaining the same, the Regional Manager passed orders on 14th September, 2010, rejecting the said review petition. The case of the petitioner is that he suffered a set back in his health and therefore, he has intimated about his sickness and also submitted a sick certificate vouching for his ill health. After he became fit, he reported to duty with necessary fitness certificate. The learned standing counsel, who is heard in the matter, has pointed out that the unauthorized absence of drivers causes any amount of dislocation to the services run and operated by the Corporation and it also causes dislocation to the traffic. Dislocation or cancellation of buses will bring forth adverse criticism from the commuting public. Hence, he submits that no lenience should be shown towards unauthorized absence caused by the drivers. While there cannot be two opinions that unauthorized absence on the part of the driver would cause dislocation to the smooth operations of the Corporation, but at the same time, one has to be alive to the fact that even the contract drivers can take ill suddenly and as a result of the sickness, they might not be in a position to report to duty promptly and faithfully. It is also not safe or proper for the Corporation to book to duty a driver who is not keeping good health. Therefore, genuine sickness offers a reasonable basis for his absence. These are all fact situations, which are required to be taken into account and consideration. When once the petitioner has produced a sick certificate from the competent medical professional, it is for the Depot Manager to take the same into consideration and account. If he has entertained any doubts about the genuineness of the certificate, it is certainly open to him to refer the contract driver for medical examination, at any Government hospital or APSRTC dispensary or APSRTC hospital. For a genuine reason or a factor beyond his control, like sickness, if a contract driver is not in a position to attend to the duties, the same has to be taken into account and consideration. In stead of terminating the services denying him wages including the benefit of continuity of service would have saved the situation and met the ends of justice. At the same time, the past service rendered by them can be taken into account and consideration only for the purpose of regularization of their services. Therefore, taking notice of all the above stated factors, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to re-engage the writ petitioner as a driver on a contractual basis with effect from 1st April, 2011. The period of service rendered by him prior to 31st August, 2009 be taken into account and consideration for the purpose of regularization of his services. The writ petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit as he has contributed to the delay in pursuing the remedies available to him both before the Appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority and hence, he shall not be entitled for the benefit of continuity of service for the period from 31st August, 2009 up to 31st March, 2011. The service rendered prior to 31st August, 2009 will be added and computed to the service to be rendered from 1st April, 2011 which will fetch him consideration for regularization of his service and terminal benefits. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 8th March 2011 bud