THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.11871 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not reckoning the seniority of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1990 under the guise of proceedings Steno/95 (41)/2002, dated 23-10-2002 of the 3rd respondent and declare the same as illegal and direct the respondents to reckon the seniority from the year 1990 and sanction stagnation grade of 12 years service, special grade of 20 years and consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Conductor Grade I from the date of his junior was promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the 1st respondent corporation in the year 1990. While working as such, a check was exercised and the petitioner was issued charge sheet with the main charge that he failed to issue ticket to a passenger who boarded the bus. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was conducted by appointing Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority after perusing the enquiry report lifted the suspension of the petitioner, but imposed punishment of reduction of basic pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages for a period of one year, which shall have effect on future increments. The disciplinary authority also issued show cause notice as to why the period of suspension shall not be treated as not on duty for the purpose of leave, increment and seniority. The explanation of the petitioner was not considered and issued order, dated 23-10-2002 treating the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of leave, increment and seniority. Against the said order of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Manage, Vijayawada (Rural), but the same was rejected. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is only with regard to treating the period of suspension as not on duty for promotion, which is contrary to the Regulation 21 (d) of APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations,1967. 4. The impugned order insofar as it relates to the treating the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of seniority is contrary to the Regulations. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside insofar as treating the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of seniority. However, it is made clear that seniority has to be ascertained from the date of his initial appointment. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, the order of the disciplinary authority is confirmed insofar as treating the suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increment. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 08-06-2011 Hsd