THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:30655 OF 2011 DATE:22.11.2011 BETWEEN: MD.MUZAFFER AHMED. …PETITIONER AND THE APSRTC REP BY ITS VC AND MD MUSHEERABAD & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:30655 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not reinstating him as Driver as per the Proceedings No:PESHI/19(20)/2008-RM, ADB, dated 29.6.2009 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate him into service as fresh Driver as per the Proceedings dated 29.6.2009 of the 2nd respondent with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Driver on daily wage basis in regular vacancy by following the APSRTC Recruitment Regulations in the year 2002 and posted to Bhainsa Depot in the 2nd respondent region. While working at Bhainsa Depot, he was issued a charge sheet , dated 25.8.2006 with three charges on the allegation that he was absent from duties, from 8.7.2006 to 25.8.2006 for which, he submitted his explanation. But, without considering the same, the Depot Manager, Bhainsa nominated an enquiry officer to conduct Departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 13.3.2007 and basing on the said report, the proceedings in E/1/1(101)/2006 & Ea/1/1(112)/6-BNS, dated 5.6.2997 have been issued by the Depot Manager, Bhainsa removing him from service and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority by proceedings, dated 4.12.2008. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent and by proceedings dated 26.9.2009, the 2nd respondent allowed the said review while setting aside the termination order and while ordering reinstatement afresh with daily wages/casual labour and he was given 7 days time for reporting to duty. It is his further case that due to ill health of his mother, he could not report for duty within the stipulated time and ultimately, his mother passed away and he also enclosed the death certificate of his mother by bringing the said fact to the notice of the 2nd respondent. But, the same has not been considered for allowing him to report for duty. Therefore, he filed the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has been directed to be reinstated into service within 7 days, due to death of his mother, he could not report for duty within the stipulated time and that the reason for not reporting for duty within the stipulated time, is a bonafide one and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to join duty even after the stipulated time. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel would submit that as a matter of fact, the revision filed by the petitioner was allowed. But, time was stipulated for a period of 7 days for reporting duty and since the petitioner has failed to report duty within the stipulated time, the order passed in the revision ordering reinstatement of the petitioner, is deemed to have been cancelled and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is stated in the representation made by the petitioner that due to ill health of his mother and also his wife, he was forced to take care about them and therefore, he could not report duty in time. The said representation is stated to have been kept pending. In the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the representation made by the petitioner, is pending with the authorities, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner by deposing of the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 14.7.2010, in accordance with law within a period of four (4) Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Date:22.11.2011 Gurc. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:30655 OF 2011 DATE:22.11.2011