HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22851 OF 2010. DATED 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEEN Sk. Silari …Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerbad, Hyderabad and ors. …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22851 OF 2010. ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the Razole Depot of APSRTC, on contract basis. His services were terminated through order dated 25.10.2007, on the ground that he remained absent to duty unauthorisedly. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Regional Manager, the second respondent herein. The appeal was allowed vide an order dated 19.02.2008, directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as driver on contract basis, afresh, subject to certain conditions. He was required to report to duty within ten days. However, he did not report to duty within the time stipulated, and when he reported thereafter, on 13.3.2008, he was not taken into service. He made a representation dated 18.12.2009 to the respondents, in this regard. He ﬁled Writ Petition No. 9086 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, through an order dated 28.04.2010, directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 18.12.2009, submitted by the petitioner. On consideration of the same, the second respondent rejected the said representation, through an order dated 11,8,2010. Hence this Writ Petition. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Basically, the order of removal was not preceded by any show cause notice, or domestic enquiry. In the departmental remedy availed by the petitioner, the second respondent has set aside the order of removal and directed re-engagement of the petitioner, afresh, through order dated 19.02.2008. However, the petitioner was denied the beneﬁt of that order, on the ground that he did not report to duty within the stipulated time of ten days. Not only the petitioner made a representation, but also he ﬁled Writ Petition before this Court in this regard. It is no doubt true that ten days time was stipulated by the second respondent, requiring the petitioner to report to duty. However, it cannot be treated so sanctimonious as to deny the petitioner the relief granted in the form of appeal. Howsoever desirable it may have been for the petitioner to report to duty within stipulated time, the various factors, that prevented him to comply with the same; cannot be ignored. The very fact that the petitioner was perusing remedies, would disclose his anxiety to get back into service. The relief granted in the appeal cannot be denied on the sole ground that he did not report to duty within the stipulated period of ten days. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The third respondent is directed to take back the petitioner into service, afresh, in case he reports to duty within ﬁfteen days from today. However, he shall not be entitled to back wages and continuity of service. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 17T H SEPTEMBER, 2010. Note: CC in one week. (BO) Msnr.