HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17967 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Driver on contract basis in the APSRTC and was posted in Tadipatri Depot. On 03-08-2009, he was entrusted with the duty of driving a bus from Hyderabad to Tadipatri. The bus hit a lorry at Alampur when the lorry stopped abruptly on account of puncture to tyre. Some damage was caused to the bus. 2. The Depot Manager, 2nd respondent, initiated proceedings and passed an order, dated 01-12-2009, terminating the services of the petitioner. Thereupon, an appeal was filed before the 1st respondent as provided for under the relevant service regulations. The 1st respondent passed an order, dated 06-02-2010, setting aside the order of removal from service, but imposing the punishment that the petitioner be placed as junior most in the panel prescribed for recruitment of contract drivers. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. He contends that he was appointed in the year 2008, and ever since, quite a large number of persons were appointed as drivers. He submits that serious prejudice and loss would be caused to him on account of his being placed as the junior most contract driver in the region. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The appointment of the petitioner as driver is on contract basis. Taking the damage that occurred to the bus into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order terminating the service of the petitioner. The 1st respondent entertained the appeal of the petitioner and granted relief of reinstatement into service by imposing punishment of placing the petitioner at the end of the list of contract drivers. That was naturally made the petitioner to become the junior to those persons who appointed subsequently. Such a course is impermissible in law. At the most, he can be treated as junior most in the batch of contract drivers in which the name of the petitioner figures. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the punishment indicated by the 1st respondent in his order, dated 06-02-2010, to the one of making the petitioner junior most in the batch of drivers in which he was appointed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 27, 2011. KTL