THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.490 of 2004 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the APSRTC') filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order dated 20-01-2003 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1080 of 1997. 2. The respondent in this appeal filed the said Writ Petition challenging the order of the Security Officer, APSRTC, Hyderabad, dated 15-02-1995, removing him from service and also the order of the appellate authority dated 26-06-1995 modifying the removal order into one of reinstatement in service, but denying him certain benefits. 3. The learned single Judge, placing reliance upon the APSRTC Leave Rules, came to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the APSRTC in the instant case was in violation of Rule 11(3) of the said Rules. Accordingly, the learned single Judge held that the disciplinary action initiated against the respondent herein was unsustainable. The learned Judge took note of the fact that the respondent herein was not on duty as he was removed from service already and held that he was not entitled to back wages. The learned Judge however granted the benefit of notional increments for the said period. The learned Judge also directed the APSRTC to calculate the arrears of pay to which the respondent was entitled to from the date of his joining duty as per the appellate authority’s order, dated 26-06-1995, till the date of passing of the order in the Writ Petition and to pay the same within a period of three months. 4. The learned standing counsel for the APSRTC contended that the learned Judge ought not to have granted the benefits under the afore stated Order keeping in mind the fact that the respondent was found to be unauthorizedly absent from service. 5. Per contra, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that his client had applied for two weeks' leave under the leave application dated 01-07-1994 thereafter had undergone treatment for Jaundice in a Government hospital. He reported for duty in November, 1994 armed with a medical certificate certifying his fitness. Relevant to note, APSRTC did not entertain any doubt with regard to the genuineness of the said certificate as it did not take recourse to the procedure prescribed under Rule 11(3) of the APSRTC Leave Rules for verifying the case of the respondent. 6. That being so, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there was no justification to deny the claim of continuity of service and also the pay to which the respondent was entitled. We find substantial force in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the APSRTC failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 11(3) of the afore stated Rules. Had it entertained any doubt about the medical certificate produced by the respondent, it ought to have taken recourse to the procedure prescribed under the said Rule. Having failed to do so, the APSRTC could not have unilaterally treated the period of absence as ‘unauthorized absence’. The appellate authority, obviously being conscious of the said circumstance, directed the reinstatement in service of the respondent but denied him back wages. The denial of back wages was also confirmed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge only held that the respondent was entitled to the arrears of pay for the period that he actually worked. There can be no dispute with such entitlement. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. 7. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 06th August, 2009. Tsy