IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3366 of 2009 Between: Ch. Chandrasekhar Rao S/o. Late Venkateshwar Rao R/o. 1-4-249/101/10/2, Balajinagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.PADMANABHA RAO REPRESENTING SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSRTC The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 29-05-2006 of respondent No.2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the driver of respondent No.1-Corporation. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for his unauthorized absence. By order dated 18-11- 2005, respondent No.3 removed the petitioner from service for being unauthorisedly absent from 24-12-2004. The appeal filed by the petitioner ended in its dismissal. The petitioner then filed a review petition before respondent No.2. The said review petition was partly allowed by the said respondent vide his order dated 29-05-2006. In his order, respondent No.2, while concurring with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the misconduct of the petitioner for being unauthorisedly absent and causing inconvenience to the Corporation, however, found that during his entire service of more than 16 years, the petitioner for the first time absented himself unauthorisedly and therefore, has taken a lenient view. Accordingly the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service with the following conditions. 1) “The appellant is reinstated into service as driver and posted to Yadgirgutta Depot. 2) The period of removal shall be treated as not on duty. 3) The security deposit is forfeited and DM/YGT shall collect SD once again afresh. 4) Deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 5) The appellant may be directed to Medical Officer, APSRTC for medical examination and he shall be appointed as Driver after being declared as fit for driver’s job by Medical Officer, APSRTC. 6) The appellant is directed to report to DM/YGT within one week from the date of receipt of the proceedings, failing which the order stands cancelled.” Feeling partly aggrieved by the conditions stipulated by respondent No.2, in his above mentioned order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of respondent No.2 in directing to treat the period of the petitioner being out of service as not on duty is too harsh. He submitted that having taken a lenient view, after considering the fact that the petitioner’s past record was blemishless, respondent No.2 had no justification to stipulate the said condition, which will constitute a break in the petitioner’s service. Though no counter-affidavit is filed, Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel representing Smt B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, submitted that as the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for his duties without intimation, permission or sanction of leave or producing valid sick certificate, the above stipulated condition cannot be said to be either arbitrary or disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Ordinarily, while undertaking judicial review, this Court does not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the domestic Tribunal. But in the instant case, respondent No.2 had himself found that the record of the petitioner is without any blemish for 16 years and that it was for the first time that he absented himself unauthorisedly. He, therefore, substituted the penalty of removal with that of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Such being the case, I do not find justification to treat the period, during which the petitioner was out of employment as not on duty, as such a condition virtually denies the benefit of service to the petitioner for the purpose of seniority and also pensionary benefits. Therefore, in my view, the said condition, on the facts of the case, is not warranted. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is, accordingly, modified with the direction that the period during which the petitioner was out of service shall be treated as on duty for the purpose of future promotions and pensionary benefits only. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to salary and other monetary benefits during the said period. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd April, 2009​ vrn