THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26725 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Driver, on contractual basis, in the Hakimpet Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was driving a local service on 07.03.2010. A charge sheet, dated 15.03.2010, was issued, pointing out that a cyclist, who came from a narrow lane, from Indira Gandhi Statue, Old Alwal, came under the rear tyre and died due to injuries. The petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that he was not, at all, at fault. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the Depot Manager, Hakimpet Depot, the 4th respondent, appointed an Enquiry Officer. Taking the finding in the enquiry report, dated 15.04.2010, the 4th respondent passed an order, dated 18.06.2010, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Secunderabad, the 3rd respondent. The appeal was partly allowed through order, dated 02.09.2010 and it was directed that the petitioner shall be appointed, afresh, as Driver, on contractual basis. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though a clear finding was recorded by the Appellate Authority to the effect that the petitioner was not at fault, he was denied the benefit of past service. It is represented that the past service of three years would become anomaly, in the context of regularization of services. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from service by the 4th respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed. Though no alternative punishment was imposed, the petitioner was denied the benefit of past service. It is no doubt true that the Appellate Authority made a clear observation to the effect that the petitioner was not at fault. The cyclist was in drunken condition and that he alone is responsible for the accident. All the same, the Appellate Authority denied the benefit of past service to the petitioner by making an observation to the effect that he ought to have observed the cyclist from rear mirror. It must not be forgotten that the petitioner was driving the bus in a busy locality in the city of Hyderabad and his concentration would be mostly on the traffic in front of the bus, as well as the vehicles coming in the opposite direction. The record of the petitioner was found to be without any blemish. Notwithstanding the facts, referred to above, the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of review to the Regional Manager. There is no reason to believe that the Regional Manager would not take these aspects into account, particularly when the past service of the petitioner is very much material, in the context of regularization. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the contract drivers, who are engaged along with the petitioner, were regularized. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of review before the Regional Manager. In case the review is filed within four weeks from today, the Regional Manager shall entertain the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08.11.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ