THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 25680 of 2002 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing punishment of removal from service vide proceedings No.M1/2(4)/2002-GVPT-II dated 13.5.2002, which was modified by the appellate authority as fresh appointment in so far it went against the petitioner in denying his past service and benefits vide proceedings No.PA/19(38)/2002-DVM-(C), Vijayawada dated 26.2.2002 as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Driver into the service of APSRTC in the year 1980. While that being so, when he was driving a bus on 11.2.2002 on the by-pass route, Mylavaram, the bus was capsized and fell into a ditch, resulting in extensive damage to vehicle and causing injuries to the traveling public. On the basis of the above, charge-sheet was issued stating that the petitioner was negligent in driving the bus. Though the petitioner submitted an explanation, the same was rejected and an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, after going through the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and on its own examination of the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be removed from service and accordingly, after issuing show-cause notice, passed an order of removal dated 13.5.2002. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed an appeal before 3rd respondent – Divisional Manager (City), Vijayawada. The appellate authority, having considered the matter in detail and having noticed that this is a first case of major accident during 12 years’ of service of the petitioner, taken a lenient view hoping that he would not give room for such offences in future and improve his driving habits and working habits and, therefore, set aside the removal order passed by the Depot Manger dated 13.5.2002 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner afresh as Driver Grade-II by an order dated 26.6.2002. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that firstly the accident was an inevitable accident and, in fact, to save the passengers the petitioner has swerved the bus and lost control and fallen into a ditch. There was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and even otherwise, it was a minor accident and no much damage was caused. Even assuming that there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Though the appellate authority noticed that this was first such accident caused by the petitioner in his tenure of 12 years, it did not consider granting the relief properly except directing reinstatement afresh. Petitioner is entitled for all the service benefits and appointing him afresh is arbitrary and illegal. Heard both sides. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The order passed by the appellate authority itself shows that the petitioner had a good track record of driving and this was first major accident caused by him, which resulted in injuries to five or six passengers and some damage to the bus. Having observed that he had 12 years of clean past record, appointing the petitioner afresh, denying 12 years of service, is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct. Now it is submitted that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for continuity of service but without any backwages and other attendant benefits. Further, continuity of service is only for the purpose of retiral benefits and not otherwise. Thus, the order passed by the appellate authority is modified to be read as under: “Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with continuity of service but without any backwages and without any attendant benefits. Further, the continuity of service can be reckoned only for the purpose of retiral benefits and not otherwise”. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 10-8-2010. MVB.