THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21482 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as Conductor on contract basis. Alleging that he remained absent unauthorizedly for about four months, the Depot Manager-2nd respondent passed an order directing removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The appeal was allowed on 12-08- 2010 and the order of removal was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be re-engaged as conductor, afresh. The grievance of the petitioner is that his past service is not being counted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent conducted a detailed enquiry before passing the order of removal. The fact remains that the appellate authority found that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and directed appointment of the petitioner afresh. Though no procedural irregularity crept into the matter, it becomes clear that the punishment imposed against the petitioner does not find place in the regulations. Further, denial of the continuity of service would have its own impact for the petitioner in the context of regularization of service. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to count the service rendered by him, excluding the one during which he was absent or out of service for the limited purpose of regularization of service. He shall not be entitled for monetary benefits on account of such a facility. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 17-08-2011 Prv