IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1307 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/04/2008 in WP NO : 12029 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Syed Ahmed, S/o.Syed Abdulla, R/o. H.No.1-1-192, Shadnagar Road Street, Near S.No. Quarters Post & District, Adilabad District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adilabad Depot, Adilabad District. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep by 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adilabad Division, Adilabad District. 3 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: ( Per ANIL R. DAVE, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 17.4.2008 passed in W.P.No.12029 of 2003, this appeal has been ﬁled by the original petitioner-a driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 20.12.1988, the appellant was removed from service as he caused an accident on 16.7.1988, which resulted into death of one person and injuries to number of passengers. In the circumstances, a criminal case was ﬁled against him for committing oﬀences under Sections 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Though he was sentenced to suﬀer simple imprisonment for the oﬀence under Section 304-A, in appeal, the punishment was reduced and he was asked to pay a ﬁne of Rs.2,000/- only. In the aforesaid circumstances, by an order dated 20.12.1988 he was removed from service. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the appellant approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court conﬁrmed the order of removal. Aggrieved thereby, the aforesaid Writ Petition was ﬁled. The learned single Judge has taken a lenient view and directed reinstatement of the appellant into service without back wages and without continuity of service. The aforesaid order has been challenged in this appeal. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has taken a lenient view, in view of the fact that the appellant had served the Corporation for number of years. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge has directed reinstatement without back wages and without any attendant benefits. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order may be modiﬁed to the eﬀect that he should be reinstated into service with attendant beneﬁts like, continuity of service etc. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has taken a lenient view in the matter as the appellant had rendered long service. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. -------------------------- ANIL R. DAVE, CJ --------------------------------- R. SUBHASH REDDY, J DATE: 29/10/2008 CVM