THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21980 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a Driver, on contract basis. On the allegation that he remained absent unauthorizedly for ten days, the Depot Manager, Jagityal, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order, dated 08.06.2009, directing his removal. The petitioner preferred a review before the Regional Manager, Karimnagar, the 1st respondent herein. The review was allowed in part, setting aside the order of removal, but directing that the petitioner be re-engaged as Driver afresh. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that an enquiry was conducted, may be in a hasty manner, before the punishment was imposed. The 1st respondent took the view that the punishment of removal is disproportionate and directed the appointment of the petitioner afresh. Though the imposition of such punishment cannot be treated as illegal, the previous service for a contract employee assumes significance, in the context of regularisation. This aspect of the matter was discussed in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to count his entire contracting service only for the purpose of regularisation, and shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:04.08.2011 GJ