THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19800 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor and was allotted to Dhone Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He remained absent for about three days in April, 2006. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and after conducting the departmental enquiry, the Depot Manager passed an order dated 02-07-2007, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, the 3rd respondent herein, against the order of removal. The 3rd respondent allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service, by reducing the punishment to the one of stoppage of basic pay of two incremental stages with cumulative effect. A further condition was incorporated to the effect that the petitioner shall report to duty within one week. The petitioner states that he suffered serious ill-health and on account of the same, he could not join the duty within the stipulated time. On the ground that he did not report to duty as directed by the 3rd respondent, the appeal filed by the petitioner was treated as dismissed. The petitioner approached the Regional Manager, the 2nd respondent, with a further appeal to permit him to join duty. The same was rejected through order dated 24-05-2010. Hence this writ petition. Heard Sri K. Venkata Ramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned counsel for the respondent. The charge on account of which, the petitioner was removed from service was, no doubt trivial and not a serious one. Obviously taking that into account, the 3rd respondent granted relief to the petitioner by imposing the lesser punishment. Since the basis for removal of the peittioner is absenteeism, the 3rd respondent imposed a condition that the petitioner must report to duty within a stipulated time. In case the petitioner has any difficulty in complying with the condition, he ought to have made representation immediately. It was long after the expiry of the stipulated period, that he approached the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent did not assign any reason whatever in rejecting the appeal. The entire order passed by him is nothing but narration of the past events. The only consideration of the appeal is evident from the last sentence, which is to the effect that, since there is a gap of 1-½ years, the appeal is rejected. The question as to whether the petitioner was communicated the order passed by the 3rd respondent and whether the reasons pleaded by the petitioner for absence, subsequent to the order of the 3rd respondent, were not at all discussed. In case of this nature, normally it would be remanded to the very authority for a detailed consideration. This Court is of the view that the order of removal of the petitioner can be set aside and modified to the one of reinstatement into service, as a fresh candidate. This course is adopted by taking into account, the need of the Corporation to engage Conductors and the livelihood of the petitioner and his family. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the order of removal dated 02-07-2007, passed by the Depot Manager, Dhone, to the one of reinstatement into service of the petitioner as a fresh candidate, without any benefits of past service. Further, the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of appointment till the date of removal shall be reckoned for the purpose of terminal benefits and not for any other purpose. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-08-2011. KO