THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27788 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner was employed as Conductor, in the Hyderabad Central University Depot of APSRTC. He was issued a charge sheet dated 24.4.2004, stating that he remained absent from duties unauthorisedly, from 24.3.2004 to 23.4.2004. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the same. Not being satisfied with that, the Depot Manager, 4th respondent herein, appointed an enquiry officer. A report dated 27.8.2004, was filed, holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Accepting the finding, the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, proposing the punishment of removal from service. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he passed an order, dated 2.5.2005, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the dismissal thereof, a review before the 2nd respondent. That was also dismissed. Hence this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only charge against the petitioner is that he remained absent from 24.3.2004 to 23.4.2004. The petitioner states that he suffered very severe back pain, and in fact, submitted an application for leave on 24.3.2004 itself. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted. A perusal of the order passed by the 4th respondent discloses that several material mistakes have crept into it. The first is that he proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was issued charge sheets, dated 24.4.2004 and 1.4.2004. The second is that at more places than one, the 4th respondent mentioned that the petitioner remained absent from 24.3.2004 to 26.8.2004. That was never the charge against the petitioner. The period of absence, which was one month according to the charge sheet, was projected, as though it was for five months. This apart, the 4th respondent took the alleged period of absence from 21.11.2004 to 23.11.2004, 26.11.2004 to 30.11.2004, and 4.12.2004. Admittedly, no charges were framed, as regards the alleged absence of duties, referred to above. A Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.769 of 2005, through its order dated 5.4.2005, held that the periods of absence not mentioned in the charge sheet, cannot be taken into account, by the disciplinary authority. The Regional Manager mostly was impressed by the fact that the petitioner was removed from service, on an earlier occasion. When the disciplinary authority itself did not make any mention about it, the review authority was not justified in taking the same, into account. The impugned order deserves to be set aside. Strictly speaking, the matter must go back to the 4th respondent, for fresh consideration and disposal. It is represented that the petitioner is left with only two or three months service, before he attains the age of superannuation. This court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the order of removal is set aside, and he is directed to be reinstated into service, with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the order of removal dated 2.5.2005 is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service, with attendant benefits and continuity of service, but without back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 13th August 2008 PAN