THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.6051 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 Petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent Corporation on 13.10.2001. The said appointment was after following due selection process. Subsequently the respondent authorities issued proceedings on 07.03.2003 regularizing his services retrospectively i.e. with effect from 01.08.2002. While so, when he was on duty a fatal accident took place on account of which a crime has been registered against him for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and a case was registered before the competent criminal court. Simultaneously disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and a charge memo has been issued to the petitioner and after following due procedure contemplated, the petitioner was removed from service on 06.09.2003. Questioning the said order, the petitioner approached the appellate authority and filed an appeal. The appellate authority taking a lenient view partly allowed the said appeal and ordered his reinstatement into service as driver but as a fresher. As against the said order passed by the appellate authority the petitioner approached the revisional authority and the revisional authority taking a further lenient view, taking his past service into consideration, though denied back wages, granted continuity of service. As the said order passed by the revisional authority dated 08.07.2008 is not implemented the petitioner gave a representation to the authorities on 19.07.2008. But, however, the respondent authorities have rejected the said representation submitted by the petitioner by order dated 19.09.2008 stating that there is ban. Hence the petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition. 2 Heard both sides. 3 In my considered view, the plea taken by the respondent authorities that there is ban cannot be countenanced. The petitioner’s services were regularized as early as on 07.03.2003 and the said regularization is with effect from 01.08.2002. When once the appellate authority and revisional authority have taken the view that the petitioner is entitled to be continued as a driver and further he is entitled to have continuity of service, the respondent authorities cannot say that there is a ban. The ban if at all is in force it will only be prospective but cannot be said to be having application to those employees whose services were regularized in the year 2003. 4 Accordingly this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are hereby directed to give benefit of continuity of service to the petitioner with effect from 01.08.2002 as was regularized by proceedings dated 07.03.2003. The said exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. --------------- 26.02.2010 kvsn