THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 22413 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in terminating the petitioner as a contract Driver as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable, disproportionate, against the principles of natural justice and against the Corporation’s Circulars and to set aside the oﬃce order dated 3.6.2006 issued by respondent No.2 herein and consequential order dated 4.3.2010 passed by the 1st respondent herein and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other consequential service beneﬁts such as regularization. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a contract Driver in the month of May, 2005 and there after he was terminated from service by an order dated 3.6.2006 on the ground of negligence. His case is that on 28.5.2006 while he was functioning as a contract Driver on route Tanuku to Arulla, at about 07-50 hours, when the bus reached near Konala and while he was taking turn into “L” shape as per the road turning, i.e. moving left and taken again right side, unfortunately at the second turning i.e. right turning, he has applied break to control the bus, but it was capsized into left side canal. With proper anticipation and time sense, he stopped the bus and tried to pick out the passengers through driver’s door and later reported the matter to the depot authorities. However, on the said allegations the petitioner was terminated from service. The same was witnessed by Conductor, who stated the same before the authorities. Even at the time of departure from the depot, he reported to the authorities that the Steering of the bus was hard and not moving. Even the Conductor also heard the same. The concerned staﬀ asked the petitioner to complete that particular duty and subsequently, it can be rectified. Basing on the said incident, the petitioner was terminated from service without any enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, he ﬁled an appeal before the appellate authority. By proceedings dated 23.9.2006, the appellate authority has ordered for the re-engagement of the petitioner. As the petitioner’s father suﬀered with severe ill-health, he could not report to duty within the time stipulated in the proceedings. But, he was not allowed to perform the duties on the ground that he did not report to duty within the time stipulated in the order of re-engagement. Later he made a representation on 4.3.2010 to allow him to join duty. As the authorities did not take any action on the said representation, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the proceedings dated 23.9.2006, Seven (7) days time was stipulated for the petitioner to join duty, due to ill health of the petitioner’ father he could not join the duty. Therefore, he made a representation to the authorities concerned. The impugned Memo dated 4.3.2010 reads thus: “With reference to your representation for re- engagement as contract Driver, it is to inform that the competent authority has not considered your representation, since you have reported after long period of four years from the date of the proceedings issued to you.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a contract Driver and was removed from service on the ground of negligence. Aggrieved by the same, he ﬁled an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority allowed the same by reinstating him into service, but the petitioner did not report to duty within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is his case that due to ill health of his father, he could not report for duty. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent, who rejected the claim of the petitioner. He contends that the rejection of the case of the petitioner under the impugned letter is bad and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits hat the relief sought for by the petitioner is squarely covered by an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 21175 of 2010 dated 1.10.2010. The case of the petitioner therein was that he was appointed as a Conductor on contractual basis in the year 2007. His services were terminated on the ground of absence. Review preferred by him was allowed on 28.2.2009 and the petitioner was required to report to duty within Seven (7) days of time. But, however, due to illness he did not report to duty within the said period of Seven (7) days. As the petitioner failed to report to duty, the Corporation has initiated steps for recruitment of a Conductor on monthly wages and notiﬁcation was also issued. Petitioner submitted his application and he was issued call letter dated 4.2.2010. His grievance was that though he was appeared and selected, he was not issued with any Order of appointment on the ground that he has not produced the original S.S.C. Certiﬁcate. He contended that the said Certiﬁcate was with the Corporation itself, on account of his previous employment. With this background, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents either to allow him to join duty in pursuance of the Order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the 1st respondent or to appoint him as a contract Conductor in pursuance of the interview conducted on 17.2.2010. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the petitioner failed to report to duty as directed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 28.2.2009. Thereafter he lost his right. His further contention was that the petitioner did not attend the interview conducted on 17.2.2010. In the said facts, and circumstances of the case, this Court passed the following order in Writ Petition No. 21175 of 2010: “The petitioner was removed from service on 27.11.2008 and the review preferred by him was allowed by the 1st respondent on 28.2.2009. There was delay on the part of the petitioner in availing the beneﬁt under the order. The very fact that the respondents issued notiﬁcation inviting applications for appointment of Conductors discloses that there are adequate vacancies. The removal of the petitioner was not on the ground of misappropriation. It was only on the allegations of absenteeism. The delay on the part of the petitioner in reporting to duty can be balanced by requiring the petitioner to forego his earlier service.” Hence, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court directing that in case, the petitioner reports to duty within a period of two weeks from today, he shall be taken into service as a Conductor on contractual basis afresh in pursuance of the orders dated 28.2.2009 passed by the 1st respondent subject to his compliance of the Orders. A slight diﬀerence of that case and the case on hand is that in Writ Petition No. 21175 of 2010, the petitioner was Conductor removed from service, but an appeal was allowed. The petitioner therein had not reported to duty within the time stipulated in the Order passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, he was denied the beneﬁt of service and thereafter, pursuant to a notiﬁcation he was interviewed, but he was not given appointment order. However, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for re-employment pursuant to the Order passed by the 1st respondent. In the present case, the petitioner, who was a driver, was removed from service on the ground of negligence in driving. Therefore, he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, he ﬁled an appeal and the same was allowed directing him to report to duty within a period of 7 days, but he could not report to duty. Thereafter, he was not allowed to join the duty. Ultimately, on the representation made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent rejected the same on the ground that he could not report to duty within the time stipulated by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner approached the authorities belatedly. So in a way, the facts of the present case and the facts of the case cited by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21175 of 2010 (cited supra) rendered by this Court are similar and identical. The learned counsel for the petitioner ﬁnally prays that the petitioner may be reengaged as a contract Driver and the petitioner is also ready to forego his earlier service. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in Writ Petition No. 21175 of 2010 and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that in case the petitioner reports to duty within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, he shall be taken into service as a driver afresh in pursuance of the orders dated 23.9.2006 passed by the 1st respondent subject to the compliance of the conditions imposed in the said order. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J. 2nd November, 2011 CHV.