THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5128 of 2010 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the third respondent in not reinstating the petitioner as fresh Driver vide proceedings in Lr. No.PA/19(124)/2009-Dy.CTM, Eluru, dated 2.2.2010 issued by the third respondent, while considering the punishment of removal from service imposed by the fourth respondent in Proc. No.P1/1(103)/2009-TNK, dated 30.11.2009 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services on par with his colleagues. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Contract Driver in first respondent corporation in the year 2005. His services were terminated on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism vide proceedings dated 30.11.2009 passed by the fourth respondent. On appeal, the third respondent, vide order dated 2.2.2010, ordered to reinstate the petitioner as fresh Driver. But, he was denied past service benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the material averments in the Writ Petition and stating as follows. The petitioner was terminated from service as he was absent from duty unauthorisedly without prior sanction of leave or intimation. Previously also, the petitioner absented from duty unauthorisedly. The conduct of the petitioner is causing lot of inconvenience to the respondent corporation in running of busses. Reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner at every stage of the enquiry, and as the petitioner was not available at the residential address given by him, the charge sheet was exhibited on the traffic notice board of the depot for ten days for his information. By taking a lenient view, the third respondent appointed the petitioner as fresh Driver. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that absence period of the petitioner is only 12 days, as per the charge sheet; that the sick certificates issued by the RTC Doctors cover the alleged absent period and on the advice of the RTC Doctors only, he took rest by availing leave without salary; that the petitioner joined in the service of the first respondent organization in the year 2005 and if he is reinstated into service afresh, he has to loose his seniority and his regularization of service will be delayed. Hence, he prays to give continuity of service to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the same on the ground that in the year 2008, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent and therefore he was removed from service and as per the orders in appeal, he was reinstated; that, after joining in the service, within 3 days, again he absconded for about 1 ½ month, and therefore, the acts of frequent unauthorized absence of the petitioner without prior sanction of leave, are causing inconvenience to the respondent corporation in running the busses, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the third respondent. 6. So far as the present charge is concerned, the petitioner was absent for about 15 days. The explanation given by the petitioner is that due to ill-health, he had been absent from duty. No doubt, without intimation to the competent authority the petitioner said to have absented from discharging the duty, which naturally causes inconvenience to the respondent corporation. On earlier occasion, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent without informing the competent authority. But, it seems, it was condoned. The earlier absence cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that it was not a part of charge leveled against the petitioner. Several notices have been sent to the petitioner in the enquiry, but as he was not available in the address given by himself, the notice was affixed on the notice board and after following due procedure the enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the authorities conducted enquiry properly. Further more, instead of filing a review petition before competent authority, the petitioner approached this Court directly. The petitioner is not seeking any monetary benefits, but he is seeking continuity of service for the purpose of regularization in existing or future vacancies. Considering the fact that he was absent for only 15 days and it is his case that sick certificates issued by the RTC Doctors cover the alleged absent period and on the advice of the RTC Doctors only, he took rest by availing leave without salary, the same may be condoned, and for that reason, the entire service rendered by the petitioner cannot be taken away by engaging the petitioner as fresh driver, which was would cause financial loss to the petitioner through out his career. Therefore, the benefit of continuity of service can be extended to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner is entitled to the continuity of service from the date of his removal till the date of his reinstatement for the purpose of regularization in the existing or future vacancies. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary or other benefits by virtue of this order. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 28.07.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5128 of 2010 28.07.2011