4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 11166 of 2011 Between: P.Sreedhar Reddy …PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager and others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 11166 of 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed to issue a writ, order or direction declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing proceedings bearing No.PA/20(122)/2010-HR, dated 17.06.2010 in ordering afresh reengagement of the petitioner as Driver, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner by treating the reengagement order of respondent No.1 with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a driver. After some time, by an order, dated 19.09.2006, passed by the Depot Manager, Falaknuma Depot, he was terminated from service on the ground of absenteeism. No enquiry was conducted before the order of termination was passed. Subsequently, against the order of termination, he preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, and the same was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review petition before respondent No.1 and requested him to reinstate him with continuity of service. But, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, dated 17.06.2010, ordering re-engagement of the petitioner as afresh Driver on contract basis. The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that while issuing order of re-engagement by respondent No.1, respondent No.1 did not extend the benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of reengagement. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through an order, dated 12.04.2010, this Court had taken a view that the contractual employees, who are re-engaged on the orders of removal are entitled to the benefit of past service. There is no other reason to deviate from the finding given by this Court with regard to extending the benefit of continuity of service as sought for. Even otherwise, the termination on the ground of absence for duties for a period 3 days in not shown to be willful or wanton. The punishment or penalty to be imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. A disproportionate penalty would be Violative of Article14 of the Constitution of India. Punishment should not be severe or harsh or disproportionate. To shorten the litigation, this Court can impose appropriate punishment. The reason for absence to the duties is beyond the control of writ petitioner as he is suffering with piles problem. That is the reason why respondent No.1 accepted the explanation of writ petitioner. 5. Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement, only for the purpose of regularization. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary or any other benefits in pursuance of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 20, 2011 YVL