THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.32829 OF 2011 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner was appointed as contract driver in the respondent Corporation in the month of May, 2005 at Tadepalli Gudem, West Godavari District. On the alleged ground of un-authorized absence from duty he was terminated by order dated 16.6.2008. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ affidavit is that on 22.3.2008 he was sent as Driver to the Special service of Tanuku to Hyderabad and on 23.3.2008, while he was returning from Hyderabad, the bus met with an accident in the early hours on 24.3.2008 and at that time, he was taking rest as 2nd driver behind the driver’s set and due to the said accident, he sustained severe injuries and on intimation to the authorities, he has taken treatment and rest. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite these facts, he was terminated from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty by proceedings dated 16.6.2008. The petitioner filed appeal on 8.12.2009 and the same was rejected on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond limitation. Eventually in the review petition, by order dated 27.1.2010, the petitioner was re-engagement as fresh Contract Driver, without continuity of service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. No counter affidavit is filed. 4. From a perusal of the order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the Regional Manager, the averments of the petitioner are not considered and it is only stated that the contention put-forth by the petitioner is not convincing and no reasons were assigned for disbelieving the case of the petitioner and it is further noted that as it is for the first time the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of unauthorized absence, lenient view is being taken. In view of these facts and circumstances, as the averments of the petitioner that he met with the accident, while he was performing duty as second driver, are not either considered or rebutted by the respondent – Corporation, I am of the considered view the impugned order needs modification by granting continuity of service to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. No order as to costs. AVS ---------------------------- 16—12—2011