THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 11581 OF 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the impugned order passed by 1st respondent, dated 28.7.1999, which is communicated to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 28.4.2005, as arbitrary and illegal; consequently to direct respondents to extend all service benefits to the petitioner. Heard both sides. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a driver in the APSRTC in the month of June 1990 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 1.8.1991. He was attached to APSRTC Bus Depot, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. While that being so, he absented himself from duties unauthorisedly and without any intimation from 17.9.1998 to 25.9.1998. Therefore, a charge-sheet was issued on 25.9.1998. In spite of receipt of charge sheet, no explanation was submitted and the petitioner did not respond to it. Therefore, respondent-Management has conducted an ex parte enquiry and passed orders of removal dated 24.2.1999. The petitioner had filed appeal before the Regional Manager and the said appeal was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated afresh, by order dated 28.7.1999. In fact, this order was passed after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner, however, did not join duty and filed belated W.P. No. 7229 of 2005 stating that the appeal filed by him was not disposed of by the Regional Manager. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4.4.2005 directing the concerned authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Since the appeal was already disposed of, the order copy was communicated to the petitioner on 28.4.2005. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner reported to duty on 7.5.2005. After two years from the date of reinstatement, he has filed the present writ petition, questioning the order dated 28.7.1999, stating that the appellate authority has not properly considered the appeal and that though the unauthorized absence on his part was explained properly, the same was not properly looked into by the appellate authority. In fact, petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, an ex parte enquiry was conducted, the order of removal was passed and the same was exhibited in the notice board in the presence of his colleagues and copy was sent to his address, which was returned as ‘the addressee not available’. Be that as it may, after filing W.P. 7229 of 2005, orders passed in the appeal, directing reinstatement, were communicated to the petitioner and he joined duty on 7.5.205. Apart from that, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of the Court to para 3 of the counter affidavit to show that the petitioner has suffered as many as five punishments out of seven, for the misconduct of absenteeism alone, and submitted that the petitioner is habitual absentee and does not deserve any sympathy from this Court. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the contentions raised by the petitioner do not inspire any confidence of the Court to grant any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Petitioner suffered five punishments for similar misconduct but he did not mend his ways. He did not attend the enquiry in the present case. Though he filed appeal and appeared before the appellate authority, he did not care to find out as to what happened to the order passed in the appeal, for more than five years, and filed W.P. 7229 of 2005 before this Court, and in view of the direction of this Court in the said writ petition, order dated 28.7.1999 passed in the appeal was communicated to him on 28.4.2005. He immediately reported to duty but did not file any writ petition for two long years thereafter. All this would show that this is nothing but a speculative and imaginary litigation. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 31-3-2010. MVB.