HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.20325 of 2011 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the third respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.E2/1(37)09-JGTL, dated 08.06.2009, which was modified by the second respondent by ordering reinstatement as a fresh Driver by denying past service and benefits to the petitioner vide Proceedings No.PA/19 (20)/2010-RM-KRMR, dated 21.08.2010, as illegal and arbitrary action, and contrary to APSRTC Regulations and circular instructions and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondent-corporation to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner including regularization forthwith. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Driver on contract basis in first respondent-Corporation in April 2006 and while working in the third respondent-Depot, it was alleged against the petitioner that he was unauthorizedly absent for the duties. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working at Jagityal depot, he had fallen sick and was admitted in the hospital for treatment, and as such, he sent the sick certificate through one V.H.Kumar, Conductor, to hand over the same to the on duty Supervisor. But, it was not accepted on the ground that there was no signature of the petitioner. So, he again submitted the certificate by signing and by that time, he was issued a charge sheet alleging that he unauthorizedly absented himself from duties from 26.04.2009 onwards. For the said charge sheet, he submitted an explanation to the Depot Manager, Jagityal Depot, but without considering the same, his services were terminated. However, on appeal, the second respondent- appellate authority considered the appeal filed by him and ordered for his reinstatement as a fresh Driver, but denying his past service and benefits, vide Proceedings No.PA/19 (20)/2010-RM-KRMR, dated 21.08.2010. The services of the drivers of his colleagues were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010, but whereas his case was denied; that since the termination orders were passed without following due process of law and as the second respondent ordered fresh appointment, the petitioner herein is entitled for all the benefits on par with his colleagues. This Court while dealing with a similar W.P.No.11039 of 1998 passed orders, dated 13.06.2009, considering all the aspects including regulations set aside the orders of appointment as fresh Conductor of the petitioner therein and directed to determine appropriate punishment as per regulations. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was absent without prior sanction of the leave due to ill-health and therefore, the punishment is disproportionate to the proved misconduct and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order, dated 21.08.2010. Learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation contended that after conducting due enquiry, the petitioner’s services were terminated by the third respondent, that the second respondent/Appellate Authority passed the order for reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service, and the same needs no interference by this Court. 5. There cannot be any dispute that the punishment should be in proportionate to the proved misconduct. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is that he was absent from duties without applying leave. No doubt, the petitioner has to obtain permission or a prior sanction of leave or should have intimated to the appointing authority in advance before applying for leave. That has not been done so. On the said charge, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service by the third respondent was ordered and the said order was modified by the second respondent/Appellate Authority without continuity of service. This would cause great hardship to the petitioner. The punishment imposed by the second respondent/Appellate Authority will have bearing effect throughout the service of the petitioner in all aspects and continues even after the retirement. It is not a case of ticket and cash irregularities. It is a case of absence to duty due to sickness. Hence, the impugned order, dated 21.08.2010, is modified directing the respondent corporation to give continuity of service without any monetary benefits. It is made clear that the continuity of service is given only for the purpose of regularization in the existing or future vacancies. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th July 2011 DR