THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 32770 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings No.P2/1(25)/2011-MDK dated 13.09.2011, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was removed from service, as illegal arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits, including back wages. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC (for short, Corporation). The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:- The petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation as conductor in the year 2007 and his services were regularized from 01.10.2010. The 2nd respondent issued charge sheet dated 20.05.2011, alleging the following charges:- (1) For having absented to our duties unauthorisedly from 05.05.11 to 07.05.2011 without any intimation or prior sanction of leave, resulting in dislocation/cancellation of services for want of Conductor, causing much inconvenience to the traveling public, besides loss of revenue to the Corporation which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. (2) For having maintained irregular attendance from march 2010 to April 2011 i.e. absented for 82 days besides availing leave for 39 days and reported sick for 14 days, totaling to 135 days, resulting in dislocation/cancellation of services for want of Conductor, causing much inconvenience to the traveling public, besides loss of revenue to the Corporation which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Denying the charges, the petitioner filed an explanation to the 1st charge stating that due to ill health of his mother, he could not attend for duties for three days i.e. from 05.05.2011 to 07.05.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to discharge his duties. In respect of 2nd charge, it was explained that the charge is vague as no details are furnished in the said charge and hence, the same is unsustainable. It is further stated that the enquiry officer i.e. Assistant Engineering Mechanic called him without giving enquiry notice and asked him to give statement and basing on the enquiry report, he was issued the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, both the counsel submit that this writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.17026 of 2011 on 07.07.2011. Hence, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. In the writ petition No.17026 of 2011, a similar relief was sought for by the petitioner therein seeking quashing of proceedings whereunder the petitioner was removed from service and sought direction to the respondents for reinstating into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with back wages. In the writ petition stated supra, this Court, by order dated 07.07.2011, observed as follows:- “Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority. But, at the same time, when the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court, then it would be a ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings. In view of the fact that the period of absence is negligible i.e. misconduct proved is only absence of a period of 9 days, the impugned order can be set aside by reinstating the petitioner forthwith with continuity of service, with imposition of punishment of non-entitlement of any other monetary benefits. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with continuity of service. The petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits by virtue of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” In the instant case, the alleged absence of the petitioner is for a period of three (03) days i.e. from 05.05.2011 to 07.05.2011, but the punishment imposed is ‘removal from service’. The facts of the present case are similar to that of the case stated supra, wherein this Court observed that the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of this Court. In view of the submission made by both the counsel that this case is squarely covered by the judgment in the writ petition stated supra, this Writ Petition is allowed, and impugned proceedings dated 13.09.2011 are set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, with continuity of service. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, by virtue of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 15th December, 2011 KSM