THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27667 of 2010 Date: 12.11.2010 Between: M.D. Ayub Khan ..... Petitioner AND The APSRTC, rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. .....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27667 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver on contract basis in Vikarabad Depot of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. A charge sheet was issued to him on 30.9.2009 alleging that he used filthy and unparliamentary language against the Supervisors on duty. He was also placed under suspension on the same day. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.10.2009. A domestic enquiry was conducted and taking into account the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 27.1.2010. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.1.2010. The 4th respondent passed an order, dated 8.2.2010, directing deletion of the name of the petitioner from the selected list of Drivers. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, the 3rd respondent herein, on 17.2.2010. Through an order, dated 18.6.2010, the 3rd respondent has set aside the order passed by the 4th respondent and directed that the petitioner be appointed as Driver on contract basis, afresh. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of other reliefs, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 4. It is no doubt true that the respondents have followed the procedure prescribed under the Regulations before an order directing deletion of the name of the petitioner was passed. The allegation against the petitioner was that he used filthy language against some of the officers of the respondent-Corporation. It is stated that the Conductors, who are present at the spot, deposed in the enquiry to the effect that the petitioner did not use any filthy language. That, however, is a matter to be decided on merits. One serious error, which this Court noticed is that the Regulations do not provide for deletion of the name from the approved list. Though the respondents contend that it is equivalent to removal from service, unless the Regulations itself provide for it, one cannot undertake equations. 5. The petitioner was granted some relief by the appellate authority. The past service rendered by the petitioner would certainly be helpful for him in seeking regularization of services. This Court is of the view that he can be extended the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization and not any other purpose. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service with the benefit of past service and he shall be entitled for the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization of service and it shall not be counted for any other purpose, nor the petitioner shall be entitled for any monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 12.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27667 of 2010 12.11.2010 Msr