THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24109 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 01.04.1999, initially, in Karimnagar Region. On the request made by her, she was transferred to Hyderabad region and allotted to Miyapur Depot. On the ground that she remained unauthorisedly absent between 20.02.2006 and 27.02.2006, a charge sheet was issued and thereafter, the punishment of deletion of her name from the list of approved Conductors was imposed through the proceedings dated 09.05.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Manager, Secunderabad Region. Through an order dated 15.09.2008, the Regional Manager directed that the petitioner be reinstated into service afresh as casual Conductor and the benefit of her past service was denied. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of her past service and other benefits to her. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A serious flaw has crept in the order passed by the Depot Manager. The charge sheet as well as the notice of enquiry are said to have been sent to the address of the petitioner, but on the ground that they were not acknowledged, they were displayed in the notice board and an enquiry was conducted. The question of appointing an Enquiry Officer would arise if only the petitioner either filed or refused to submit the explanation to the charge sheet within stipulated time. Taking into account the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager proposed the punishment of deletion of name of the petitioner from the list of approved Conductors. He issued second show cause notice, dated 27.04.2006, without even making an attempt to serve it upon the petitioner. The notice was straightaway put in the notice board of the depot. This is the second flaw that has crept in the order passed by the Depot Manager. The Regional Manager, no doubt, granted relief to the petitioner. However, she was denied the benefit of her past service of about 11 years. This Court is of the view that such a decision is unwarranted. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to the past service from the date of her initial appointment, but without any monetary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 28th September 2010 dr