THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18079 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Gokavaram Depot of APSRTC, on casual basis. A charge sheet was issued to her on 24.1.2006, alleging that she was unauthorisedly absent from duties on 20th and 21st January 2006, without prior permission. Petitioner submitted her explanation on 25.1.2006, stating that she was absent on account of illness and that she has produced a medical certiﬁcate from an authorized Medical Oﬃcer. An enquiry is said to have been conducted by the Superintendent (Traﬃc) of the Depot, and that a report was ﬁled on 27.1.2006. Petitioner was issued another show-cause notice on 28.1.2006 and she submitted her explanation on 2.2.2006. The respondent passed an order dated 8.7.2006, terminating the service of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.S. Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. From a perusal of the order of termination, it is evident that three periods of absence of the petitioner were mentioned therein. The ﬁrst spell of the absence is on 20th and 21st January 2006, and this is the one, covered by the show-cause notice. Petitioner submitted her explanation on 25.1.2006 and an enquiry report is said to have been submitted within two days, i.e. on 27.1.2006. Based on the report, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 28.1.2006 and the petitioner submitted her explanation on 2.2.2006. The decision taken by the respondent based on the report and the show-cause notice, is reﬂected in the impugned order itself, which reads as under: “Based on the enquiry report, together with the circumstances of the case on both sides, she has been taken on duty as a ﬁrst chance at Gokavaram Depot, duly kept under observation for her attendance.” With this observation, the disciplinary proceedings that commenced with the charge sheet dated 24.1.2006, have come to an end. However, the 1st respondent kept the said proceedings alive. The second spell of absence alleged against the petitioner was from 18.6.2006 to 20.6.2006, on the ground if ill-health. Petitioner submitted ﬁtness certiﬁcate on 21.6.2006. Her own explanation was sought for, on the same day, and even this period of absence was condoned. The observation made in the impugned order about this period of absence, reads as under: “ … On noticing her personal hearing through reference 9th cited, (21.6.2006), she has been taken on duty as a second chance.” The third spell is when the petitioner reported sick on 5.7.2006 and remained absent on the next day also. She reported to duty on 7.7.2006. The impugned order of removal from service is based on this spell of absence. The conclusion arrived at in the impugned order reads as under: “From the above discussions, it is felt that you are unproﬁtable worker and habituated for applying sick/absence so many times as envisaged above and felt to delete her name from the Approved List for regularization.” From the above narration of facts, it is evident that though the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated for her absence on 20th and 21st January 2006, the respondent condoned the same, but deleted the name of the petitioner from approved list, on the ground that the petitioner reported sick on 5th and 6th July 2006. On the face of it, the action of the respondent is untenable. An employee cannot be inﬂicted punishment for a lapse, which did not form part of the disciplinary action, or charge sheet. A further illegality in the matter is that the punishment was imposed for the second spell of absence, though the absence for which the charge sheet was issued, was condoned. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated, with continuity of service and attendant beneﬁts, but without back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 25th August 2008 PAN