HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2780 of 2011 Date: February 18, 2011 Between: K. Anand Kumar … Petitioner And 1. A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2780 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver on contract basis in Vikarabad Depot of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. A charge sheet was issued to him on 02.11.2009 alleging that he committed some cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the service on 05.10.2009 on route Hyderabad to Bangalore and also kept him under put off duty pending departmental enquiry. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.11.2009. A domestic enquiry was conducted and taking into account the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager, Hyderabad-II issued a show cause notice dated 29.01.2010. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.11.2009. The Depot Manager, Hyderabad-II passed an order dated 04.02.2010 directing deletion of the name of the petitioner from the selected list of Drivers. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, the second respondent herein, on 06.02.2010. Through an order, dated 13.05.2010 the second respondent has set aside the order passed by the Depot Manager, Hyderabad-II and directed that the petitioner be appointed as Driver on contract basis, afresh. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of other reliefs, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. It is no doubt true that the respondents have followed the procedure prescribed under the Regulations before an order directing deletion of the name of the petitioner was passed. One serious error, which this Court noticed is that the Regulations do not provide for deletion of the name from the approved list. Though the respondents contend that it is equivalent to removal from service, unless the Regulations provide for it, one cannot undertake any such exercise. 5. The petitioner was granted some relief by the appellate authority. The past service rendered by the petitioner would certainly be helpful for him in seeking regularization of services. This court is of the view that he can be extended the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization and not for any other purpose. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service with the benefit of past service and he shall be entitled for the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization of service and it shall not be counted for any other purpose, nor the petitioner be entitled for any monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: February 18, 2011. BSB