HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.600 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 22.1.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent insofar as it went against the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all attendant benefits including backwages. It appears that the petitioner joined in the services of the Corporation as conductor on 9.4.1987 and he was attached to APSRTC Bus depot, Venkatagari, Nellore District. While that being so, he absented for duties from 3.6.1998 to 10.6.1998 without permission or sanction of leave. Therefore, he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: (1) For having been absent for duties from 3.6.1998 to till date (10.6.1998) without permission or prior sanction of leave, which is misconduct as per Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963. (2) For having caused dislocation of operations and much inconvenience to the traveling public as well as loss of revenue to the Corporation due to his irregular attendance/sudden absence which is a serious misconduct as per Reg.28(ix.a)/28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees’ Conduct Reg.1963. (3) For having left the head quarters without obtaining permission from the competent authority which is a violation of Reg.5 of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963. The petitioner submitted his explanation and since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, a detailed enquiry was conducted into the same. After completing the formalities, the petitioner was removed from service by the disciplinary authority by order dated 19.3.1999. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Divisional Manager, Gudur. However, the appeal was rejected by order dated 2.8.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed further appeal before the Regional Manager, Nellore. The Regional Manager after going through the records however came to the conclusion that since the past conduct of the petitioner was clean, on humanitarian grounds, a lenient view was taken, and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as fresh appointment as conductor. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondents have taken the subsequent conduct of the petitioner into consideration while passing the impugned order but the same was not part of the charge. According to the petitioner, his absenteeism from 8.3.1999 to 18.3.1999 was also taken into consideration and with prejudice the impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 19.3.1999 and therefore, the very impugned order, which was modified by the appellate authority to that of fresh appointment, does not stand to legal scrutiny and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for restatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, whereas Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and in fact, his past conduct was taken into consideration and a charge was framed in that regard and after considering the past conduct, the order of removal was passed. It is also contended that may be the absenteeism from 8.3.1999 to 18.3.1999 was also enumerated for the purpose of appreciation, since the petitioner committed grievous offence the disciplinary authority has rightly removed the petitioner from service, but however, the appellate authority took a lenient view of the matter on humanitarian grounds and ordered fresh appointment and that the appellate authority has not committed any error calling for interference by this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record. For the purpose of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Charge No.2 as noticed above and submitted that the irregular attendance and sudden absence are related to charge No.1 i.e., from 3.6.1998 to 10.6.1998. I am afraid and unable to agree with the submission the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In fact, in the body of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, it was categorically stated that from 1.6.1996 to 16.6.1998, the petitioner was not available for duties for a period of 132 days by availing 15 days leave + 45 days sick leave +72 days of absence. May be the said absence was condoned and thereafter, he was reinstated into service. Further, simply because it was stated that he was kept under observation and even after issuing show cause notice of removal, the petitioner was again absent unauthorizedly from 8.3.1999 to till date i.e., 18.3.1999, it cannot be taken as a charge which has influenced the authorities for the purpose of imposing punishment of removal from service. The appellate authority however took a lenient view of the matter considering the past conduct of the petitioner as conductor. It may not be out of place to note that as a conductor, he would have many allegations against him in conducting the bus particularly, the allegations of cash and ticket irregularities. May be there was no such allegation that’s why the appellate authority has stated that he had a clean record and therefore, on humanitarian grounds, the order of removal was modified to that of reinstatement as fresh appointment. I am of the considered opinion that in case of absenteeism into the matter, nobody can escape from the charges whether an enquiry is conducted or no enquiry is conducted. In this case, simple because some observations were made as to his subsequent conduct that does not mean that no enquiry was conducted and his past conduct was good. However, taking over all circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that directing reinstatement as fresh appointment by denying all other benefits may not be proper on the part of the appellate authority in a case of this nature. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be modified to be read as under: The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service, but without any backwages and without any attendant benefits. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated: 3.2.2011 Nn. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.600 OF 2003 3.2.2011