IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17665 OF 2011 Between: A. Rajeswari ..... Petitioner AND The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & 2 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17665 OF 2011 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the third respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.E1/1(49)08-KKL, dated 15.06.2009, which was modified by the second respondent by ordering reinstatement as a Fresh Conductor by denying past service and benefits to the petitioner vide Proceedings No.PA/19 (204)/2010-RM-Q, dated 14.04.2010, as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations and circular instructions and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondent corporation to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner including regularization forthwith. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on contract basis in February, 2007, and while working in the third respondent Depot, it was alleged against the petitioner that she was absent for duties, but she denied the same. While the petitioner was on duty, she suffered vomiting and immediately, she was taken to the Hospital and with the advise of the on duty officials, she was admitted in the Hospital and was in ICU for 5 days and as an inpatient for 15 days and on the advise, she took bed rest for another 15 days, that when she went to the Depot, she was informed that an enquiry was ordered. Then she stated that due to health problem, she joined in the Hospital and she submitted the medical certificates, but without considering the same, her services were terminated. The second respondent authority considered the appeal filed by her and ordered for reinstatement as a fresh Conductor, but denying her past service and benefits, vide Proceedings No. PA/19 (204)/2010-RM-Q, dated 14.04.2010. The petitioner submits that the action of the second respondent in ordering fresh appointment without considering the crucial aspect that she suffered ill-health while on duty and the action of the second respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of service benefits is contrary to all cannons of law and the entire proceedings are arbitrary and as such she is entitled to get all the benefits from the respondent corporation including regularization on par with her colleagues in the interest of justice. The petitioner further submits that the second respondent mechanically ordered for reinstatement as fresh Conductor and the second respondent, without taking into consideration of the service rendered and the length of absence alleged and having considered that the petitioner had put in unblemished record of service and having reinstated, failed to order for reinstatement with consequential benefits, and that the petitioner was illegally terminated from service without there being any misconduct. The petitioner further submits that the Conductor services of her colleagues were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010, but whereas her case was denied, that since the termination orders were passed without following due process of law and as the second respondent ordered fresh appointment, the petitioner herein is entitled for all the benefits on par with her colleagues. The petitioner submitted that this Court while dealing with a similar W.P.No.11039 of 1998 passed orders, dated 13.06.2009, considering all the aspects including regulations held that “In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.J.Paul[1], the earlier judgments of this Court taking a contrary view must be held no longer as good law and as a result the impugned order of the reviewing authority, appointing the petitioner as a conductor afresh, must necessarily be set aside and the matter remanded to the 2nd respondent for his consideration on the question of penalty. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent is, accordingly, set aside and he is directed to examine the records and determine the appropriate punishment to be imposed on the petitioner strictly in accordance with the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. Needless to state that, since the petitioner has been continuing pursuant to the earlier order of the Reviewing Authority to appoint him afresh as a Conductor, status quo as on today shall continue till final orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner herein.” The above said judgment is applicable to the case of the petitioner also and as such the second respondent authority may be directed to review the case of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order, dated 14.04.2010, without disturbing her continuity of service in the interest of justice and fair play in action. The petitioner further submits that as she was reinstated as fresh, she had to loose her seniority and she will become junior most and more over, the respondent corporation regularized the services of the contract employees and the petitioner’s case was not considered, for which she is loosing her basic pay to a tune of Rs.5,000/- per month as her past and removal period of service was denied by the second respondent/Appellate Authority. There is no proved misconduct on the part of the petitioner, but she was punished by the respondent corporation. Hence, it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to regularize the services of the petitioner on par with her colleagues forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition or else, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was absent without prior sanction of the leave for 15 days due to ill-health and, therefore, the punishment is disproportionate to the proved misconduct and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order, dated 14.04.2010. 4. Learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation contended that after conducting due enquiry, the petitioner’s services were terminated by the third respondent, that the second respondent/Appellate Authority passed the order for reinstatement of the petitioner without any continuity of service. 5. There cannot be any dispute that the punishment should be in proportionate to the proved misconduct. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is that she was absent for about 15 days without applying leave. No doubt, the petitioner has to obtain permission or a prior sanction of leave or should have intimated to the appointing authority in advance before applying for leave. That has not been done so. Therefore, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service by the third respondent was ordered and the said order was modified by the second respondent/Appellate Authority without continuity of service, which would cause great hardship to the petitioner. The punishment imposed by the second respondent/Appellate Authority will have bearing effect through out the service of the petitioner in all aspects and continues even after the retirement. Therefore, for the absence of 15 days, such harsh punishment cannot be said to be proportionate to the proved misconduct. Hence, the impugned order, dated 14.04.2010, is modified directing the respondent corporation to give continuity of service without any monetary benefits. It is made clear that the continuity of service is given only for the purpose of regularization in the existing or future vacancies. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 4th July, 2011. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17665 OF 2011 4th July, 2011 KL [1] AIR 1999 S.C. 1994