THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 646 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to Proceedings No. 19(70)/04-VSK.U. dated 8.1.2005 on the file of 2nd respondent and set aside the same as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Mechanic in APSRTC w.e.f. 25.10.1979. According to him, he has been performing the duties entrusted to him with all ability and without any blame. While that being so, on 15.5.2005, the following charges were framed: “1. For having improper maintenance of vehicle No. AP-10-Z-4376 of Sch.II maintenance on 28.4.4, as a result of which the vehicle failed enroute due to breakage of CJ BED on 3.5.04 and caused inconvenience of the image of the Corporation among the traveling public, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (ix.a & xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having improper maintenance of vehicle No. AP9Z-1935 of Sch.II maintenance on 4.5.04, as a result of which the Vehicle failed enroute due to WARN-OUT OF FLEXIBLE PIPE on 7.5.04 and caused inconvenience to the traveling public besides loss of revenue to the Corporation due to cancellation of 27 KMs and tarnishing of the image of the Corporation among the traveling public, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (ix.a & xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” and proceedings were served on him. Petitioner submitted explanation, but, having not satisfied with the said explanation, the management removed him from service by an order dated 13.9.2004. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam Urban. The Divisional Manager, after detailed consideration of the entire proceedings of the disciplinary authority and looking into the records, modified the punishment of removal from service to that of reinstatement of the petitioner into service, afresh, as Mechanic. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed insofar as not granting other reliefs. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was removed from service for petty reasons and the misconduct purported to have been committed by the petitioner earlier should not have been formed part of the charges and any misconduct previously committed by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of present proceedings. The misconduct attributed to the petitioner is not due to any fault of petitioner, inasmuch as, after the vehicle was repaired, it had run on the roads for more than five days and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any mistake on the part of the petitioner in supervising repairs to the vehicle after 5th day of running. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have failed to note that there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner. The appellate authority, while granting relief of reinstatement, denied all the benefits, such as, continuity of service, attendant benefits etc., by treating the petitioner as fresh recruitee after more than 25 years of service. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside insofar as not granting other reliefs. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority and drawn attention of the Court to the counter filed by the respondents wherein punishments imposed on the petitioner on 21 different occasions, were mentioned. It is further submitted that the petitioner is lucky enough to get reinstatement and, in the light of punishments suffered by him earlier, the appellate authority rightly not granted any further relief. Though learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that earlier misconducts were not part of charges, therefore, all those aspects cannot be taken into consideration, I am of the opinion that they are all matter of record and out of those punishments, 14 punishments were imposed only for improper maintenance of vehicles. Even then, the appellate authority has taken lenient view of the matter and granted fresh appointment. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for continuity of service and other attendant benefits except counting previous service rendered by him for the purpose of retiral and pensionary benefits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 30-3-2010. MVB.