THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.12387 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not reckoning the seniority of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e., dated 01-07-1986 under the guise of proceedings PA/20(27)/2002-HCR, dated 25-11-2003 of the 3rd respondent and declare the same as contrary to Regulation 21 of APSRTC Employees (CC & A) Regulations, 1967 and direct the respondents to reckon the seniority from 01-07-1986 and consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk/Controller from the date of his junior was promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the 1st respondent corporation on 05-11-1985. While working as such, a check was exercised and the petitioner was issued charge sheet with the main charge that he failed to issue tickets to three passengers who boarded the bus. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was conducted by appointing Enquiry Officer, who held that the charge against the petitioner was proved. Basing on the enquiry report, he 5th respondent ordered removal of the petitioner from service, vide proceedings, dated 08-10-2002. Against the said order of removal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent, but the same was also rejected, vide proceedings, dated 30-12-2002. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings, dated 25-11-2003 set aside the order of the 5th respondent and directed to reinstate the petitioner as Conductor Gr.II duly reducing his pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which shall have effect on future increments. The period from the date of removal till the date of his reporting for duty was treated as not on duty for all purposes viz., PF, Gratuity, leave, increment, promotion and seniority. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is only with regard to treating the period of suspension as not on duty for promotion. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such punishment is contrary to the Regulation 21 (d) of APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations,1967. 4. The impugned order insofar as it relates to the treating the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of seniority is contrary to the Regulations. This aspect of the case is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside insofar as treating the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of seniority and promotion while confirming the remaining part of impugned order. However, it is made clear that seniority of the petitioner has to be ascertained from the date of his initial appointment. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, the order of the 3rd respondent is confirmed insofar as treating the suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of leave, P.F., gratuity and increment. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 08-06-2011 Hsd