THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 21186 of 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order No.Peshi/675(32)/10-RM:NZB, dated 07.03.2011 passed by the second respondent whereunder and whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated into service as Driver afresh without continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. 2. The petitioner joined as Driver in the first respondent corporation in the year 1996. While so, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, with following charges: Charge No.1: For having driven the Bus No.AP11Z 4629 in rash and negligent manner and dashed a pedestrian Sri Shiva Shankar, s/o. Ganesham Mishra, aged 57 years near Medchal at about 20.30 hrs. on 29.8.09 on route Bodhan-Hyderabad, resulting the pedestrian sustained head injuries and declared dead on the spot which is a misconduct in terms of Reg.28 sub-clause (ix) (a&b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. Charge No.2: For having driven the Bus No.AP11Z 4629 with lack of anticipation of route Bodhan-Hyderabad and dashed a pedestrian Sri Shiva Shankar, s/o. Gangasham Mishra, 57 years near Medchalk at about 20.30 hrs on 29.8.09 resulting in the pedestrian sustained head injuries and declared dead on the spot which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 sub-clause (ix) (a&b) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. After conducting enquiry, the third respondent- disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service, vide order dated 15.10.2010. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination was dismissed on 13.10.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the second respondent, wherein the second respondent, by the impugned order dated 07.03.2011, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver afresh without continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is not in dispute before this court that the rules and regulations of the first respondent Corporation do not provide for reinstating him into service as a fresh Driver. This is not even disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation. Considering the unblemished past service of the petitioner for 14 years, the second respondent has taken a lenient view. But, as this Court consistently held in several cases, the petitioner is entitled to continuity of the service from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. 5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to the continuity of the service from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. However, by virtue of this order, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary or any other benefits treating duly the removal period as not spent on duty. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 28.07.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 21186 of 2011 28.07.2011