THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Writ Petition No.11872 of 2000 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent- Corporation. That he was issued a charge sheet, dated 02.05.1998, for his unauthorised absence from 27.04.1998 to 02.05.1998 i.e., for a period of five days, without prior permission or sanction of leave. That after issuing show-cause notice and calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, the third respondent passed the order, dated 27.03.1999, removing him from service. The said order was questioned before the appellate authority i.e., the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (Rural), APSRTC, Visakhapatnam, and the appellate authority by the order, dated 29.07.1999, directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service as Conductor Grade-II with the following terms and conditions: “(1) He shall be found medically fit for A2 category, (2) He shall pay Security Deposit afresh, (3) His pay shall be reduced by ONE INCREMENTAL stage for a period of one year which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments, (4) The intervening period from the date of his removal till he reports for duty where he is posted shall be treated as “NOT ON DUTY” for the purpose of leave, wages and increments.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service for his unauthorised absence only for five days is without any justification and arbitrary. It is also submitted that as the petitioner fell sick, he could not attend the duty on those days and he also submitted a medical certificate to that effect. The appellate authority having rightly passed the impugned order reinstating the petitioner by imposing the aforesaid conditions, this Court is of the opinion that imposing condition No.3 i.e., reduction of one incremental stage for a period of one year, which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments, is not justified. In normal course, this Court would have relegated the petitioner to Labour Court for redressal of his grievances. Instead, having regard to the fact that the charge against the petitioner is only unauthorised absence, that too, only for five days and he submitted his explanation stating that he fell sick and therefore, he could not attend to duties on those days, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify condition No.3 imposed by the appellate authority to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year alone without having any cumulative effect. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________________ (V.ESWARAIAH, J) Dt.09.12.2010 VGB