THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22866 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor on contract basis in Ranga Reddy region of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. A charge sheet was issued to him on 04.12.2009 alleging that he remained absent from 24.11.2009 till 04.12.2009. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.12.2009. A domestic enquiry was conducted and taking into account the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice, dated 14.12.2009, was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.01.2010. The Depot Manager, Vikarabad Depot, passed an order, dated 31.01.2010, directing deletion of the name of the petitioner from the selected list with immediate effect besides treating the period of absence as ‘NOT ON DUTY’ for all purposes. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, the 1st respondent herein, on 22.02.2010. Through an order, dated 18.06.2010, the 1st respondent has set aside the order passed by the Depot Manager, Vikarabad Depot, and directed that the petitioner be appointed as a Conductor on contract basis, afresh. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of other reliefs, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 4. It is no doubt true that the respondents have followed the procedure prescribed under the Regulations before an order directing deletion of the name of the petitioner was passed. The allegation against the petitioner was that he remained absent to duties from 24.11.2009 till 04.12.2009. One serious error, which this Court noticed is that the Regulations do not provide for deletion of the name from the approved list. Though the respondents contend that it is equivalent to removal from service, unless the Regulations also provide for it, one cannot undertake equations. 5. The petitioner was granted some relief by the appellate authority. The past service rendered by the petitioner would certainly be helpful for him in seeking regularization of services. This Court is of the view that he can be extended the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization and not for other purpose. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service with the benefit of past service and he shall be entitled for the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization of service and it shall not be counted for any other purpose, nor the petitioner shall be entitled for any monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J August 12, 2011 V V