THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21484 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as driver on contract basis. Alleging that he caused a fatal accident, the 2nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings and passed order dated 17-03-2010, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Secunderabad, and the appeal was rejected on 08- 04-2010. Aggrieved further, the petitioner filed a review to the 1st respondent and the review was allowed on 08-03-2011 and the order of removal was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be re-engaged as driver afresh. The grievance of the petitioner is that his past service is not being counted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent conducted a detailed enquiry before passing the order of removal. The fact remains that the review authority found that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and directed appointment of the petitioner afresh. Though no procedural irregularity crept into the matter, it becomes clear that the punishment imposed against the petitioner does not find place in the regulations. Further, denial of the continuity of service would have its own impact for the petitioner in the context of regularization of service. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to count the service rendered by him, excluding the one during out of service for the limited purpose of regularization of service. He shall not be entitled for monetary benefits on account of such a facility. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 17-08-2011 Prv