HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.10211 of 2011 Date: April 15, 2011 Between: M.Kameswara Rao … Petitioner And 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.10211 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner vide proceedings No.02/95(26)/2009-RJNR, dated 26.09.2009 without properly following the procedure prescribed in circular No.PD-5/2009, dated 23.02.2009, as illegal and arbitrary and the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.PA/20(237)/09- RM:HR, dated 31.07.2009, ordering re-engagement on Fresh Contract Agreement has to be treated as re-engagement with continuity of service and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on par with his juniors. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Contract Conductor in the 1st respondent corporation on 04.08.2007, through the process of selection by the Selection Committee constituted as per the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 in Hyderabad Region and posted to Rajendranagar Depot. On 07.03.2009 while the petitioner was conducting bus No.AP 28Z 3493, on route 95-K, the TTIs of Regional Enforcement Squad, Hyderabad Region checked the bus and alleged that the petitioner failed to issue ticket of Rs.2/- denomination to a passenger boarded at Aramghar X roads, stage No.4/3 and found alighting at stage No.3 though collected Rs.2/- and that the petitioner failed to close the tray numbers of Rs.2/- and Rs.3/- denominations upto the stage of check i.e., stage No.3; that the petitioner sold three tickets of Rs.28/- denomination (Travel as You Like) un-serially and not remitted the amount in the depot. It was submitted by the petitioner in his explanation that the passengers who boarded the bus at Aramghar X Roads gave him Rs.10/- and after issuing Rs.4/- denomination ticket to the said passenger change of Rs.6/- was returned to him before the check took place and with regard to travel as you like tickets, the petitioner stated that it was by mistake he issued from back side instead of serially. The petitioner was removed from service by the 4th respondent vide office order, dated 26.06.2009, after conducting an enquiry. The petitioner preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent, which was rejected on 06.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review before the 2nd respondent on 15.07.2009. The 2nd respondent vide order, dated 31.07.2009, ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner on executing fresh agreement. There cannot be any dispute that punishment or penalty to be imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Although the quantum of punishment is within the discretion of disciplinary authority and on appeal, in the appellate authority, yet it must suit the offence and it should not be harsh. 3. In the similar facts and circumstances, this Court by order, dated 04.03.2011, in W.P.No.5365 of 2011, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein that the petitioner therein shall be entitled to the benefit of the continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement only for the purposes of regularisation; that, however, the petitioner therein shall not be entitled to any monetary or other benefits on account of the said order. 4. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 15, 2011. LMV