THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22331 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1997. On 20.01.2007, an accident occurred, when he was on duty, leading to the death of an old woman. Charge sheet was issued and domestic enquiry was conducted. An order of removal was passed against him on 04.08.2007 by the Depot Manager. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal before the Divisional Manager and the appeal was rejected. The petitioner filed a review, provided for under the Regulations, before the Regional Manager, Mahaboobnagar, 1st respondent herein. Through his order, dated 02.09.2008, the 1st respondent directed that the petitioner be reinstated into service afresh as a Driver, meaning thereby that it shall be a fresh appointment. C.C.No.93 of 2007 instituted against the petitioner ended in acquittal before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wanaparthy, through judgment, dated 19.06.2008. The petitioner contends that the denial of benefit of continuity of service and back wages is a too harsh punishment, particularly when he was acquitted in the criminal case. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The record discloses that the accident occurred not at a time, when the bus was in speed. It stopped at a stage and when the petitioner started the bus on receiving signal from the conductor, an old lady came across and was hit by the bus, may be in the slow motion. The shape of the bus is such that the driver would not be in a position to observe the objects immediately in front of the vehicle at least up to a distance of 10 feet. Though the petitioner was under obligation to be cautious, the incident that had occurred on 20.01.2007 cannot be squarely attributed to him. The death of the person naturally warrants punishment, but it should not be to the extent of denying the petitioner the benefit of ten years of service. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, in case the reinstatement of the petitioner is directed to be with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed modifying the order, dated 02.09.2008 passed by the 1st respondent to the effect that the reinstatement of the petitioner shall be without back wages but with continuity of service limited to the terminal benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 08.09.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22331 of 2010 Date: 08.09.2010 JSU