THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 12857 of 2011 DATE: 28th APRIL, 2011 Between: Md. Tajuddin … Petitioner A n d APSRTC and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 12857 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against order dated 21.02.2011 in Proceedings No.Peshi/675(21)/10-RM:NZB issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was reinstated into service without continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner. The charges framed against the petitioner are:- (i) “You have violated the rule of issuing the correct tickets to the passengers in your bus while you were performing the duty on the route Nizamabad-Warangal on 22.04.10, which constitutes mis-conduct in terms of Regulation No.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC, Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” (ii) “You have collected an amount of Rs.206/- from a batch of two passengers who boarded the bus at Nizamabad and bound for Karimnagar, the ticket fare for one adult passenger is Rs.83/- but you have issued Rs.73/-. Thus you have less issued worth of Rs.10/- den. E2 tickets which constitutes mis-conduct in terms of Regulation No.28(vi) (a) & (x) of APSRTC, Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.” (iii) “You have failed to tally the number of passengers with number of correct ticket issues in the STAR document, 8+2 LD, but you have failed to do so, which constitutes mis- conduct in terms of Regulation No.28(xvii) & (xxxii) of APSRTC, Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.” 3. After conducting due enquiry, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service. On appeal, it was confirmed. A review petition is filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent wherein the 2nd respondent, by order dated 21.02.2011, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service as conductor afresh. 4. It is not in dispute before this Court that the rules and regulations of the Corporation do not provide for reinstating him into service as fresh conductor. This is not even disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation considering the unblemished past service of 20 years of petitioner, the reviewing authority has taken a lenient view. Therefore, the impugned punishment is modified and the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal to reinstatement. It is made clear that by virtue of this order, the petitioner shall not be entitled for monetary or any other benefits treating duly the removal period as not spent on duty. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of without costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 28th April, 2011 KSM