THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6088 OF 2011 O R D E R: The writ petitioner, who is a regular driver, has been proceeded against as a measure of discipline by the Depot Manager, Machilipatnam for his unauthorised absence from duties from 13.10.2010 to 21.11.2010. The writ petitioner has participated in the enquiry but, however, while finalising the disciplinary proceedings, the Depot Manager through his proceedings dated 26.02.2011, has also taken into account the absence caused by the writ petitioner between 09.02.2011 and 23.02.2011 in the following words:- “However, in order to provide him opportunity to serve better to the organization duly changing is attitude; he was directed for duty pending further action and to watch his attendance, but, the Dy. Supdt. (T)/MTM vide ref 9th cited has reported that the driver has absented from his duties from 09.02.2011 to 23.02.2011.” This limb of the allegation has never formed part of the charge sheet issued to the writ petitioner on 23.10.2010. It is obvious that the absence in February 2011 would not have formed part of the charge sheet, which was drawn in October 2010. Therefore, the order passed by the Depot Manager is clearly vitiated. Heard Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. The learned counsel for the writ Petitioner has also drawn my attention to a judgment rendered in S. Franklin Vs., The APSRTC, represented by its Managinging Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others[1], in identical fact situation on 12th June 2009, wherein the entire matter was concluded as under:- “Since the impugned order is set aside all due to the fault and mistake committed by the Depot Manager, it is open to the APSRTC to take such suitable measures and steps including administering a warning to the erring Depot Manager, while leaving liberty to the disciplinary authority and the Corporation to proceed against the writ petitioner appropriately.” Following the said judgment, this writ petition is also allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2011 leaving liberty to the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 26.02.2011 strictly on merits. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th March 2011 bud [1] W.P.No.11518 of 2009