IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 7856 of 2011 Between: A.R.Reddy …PETITIONER AND The Divisional Manager, APSRTC and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 7856 of 2011 This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to treat respondent No.1’s proceedings, dated 31.08.2009, as re-instatement of the petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation. 2. In pursuance of the proceedings No.02/62(34)/09-RNG.II, dated 01.08.2009 issued by respondent No.2-Depot Manager, Ranigunj-II Depot, the petitioner services were terminated for the reason that having collected a requisite fare of Rs.3/- from the passenger, failed to issue ticket to him. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1-Divisional Manager, Secunderabad Division. Through an order, dated 31.08.2009, the case of the petitioner was treated a case of first time charge of cash and ticket irregularities and therefore, a lenient view has been taken and given an opportunity to discharge his duties honestly and legally subject to certain conditions. 3. In pursuance of the order, dated 31.08.2008, the petitioner was reinstated into service as contract Conductor with effect from 31.08.2008. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that while issuing orders of re-engagement by appellate authority, the respondents did not extend the benefits of continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of re-engagement. 4. As seen from the record at the earliest point of time, the petitioner has stated that he issued a ticket to the passenger, but the same was not found at the time of checking by the officials. He also requested the checking officials to verify the ticket issued or denomination, but they refused to verify the same. That explanation is spontaneous which can be given credence. Therefore, it is not a case of misappropriation of ticket amount of Rs.3/-. Considering that aspect, respondent No.2 has taken a lenient view by reinstating the petitioner into service. There cannot be any dispute that punishment or penalty to be imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. To shorten the litigation, the order impugned can be modified. As there are no other instances of collecting the fare and not issuing the tickets, he can be given continuity of service from the date of removal of order passed by the Disciplinary authority till the date of reinstatement only for the purpose of continuity of service. This order cannot be used for any other purpose including monetary benefits. 5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 11, 2011 YVL