THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8313 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent by its proceedings No.PA/20A(9)/2000-RM ‘C’ dated 08.02.2000 appointing him as conductor Grade-II afresh with immediate effect without giving his continuity of service and full backwages and all other attendant benefits as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to give him the continuity of service with full backwages and all other benefits. Heard. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. on bus No.AP9Z 1550. On 12.03.1999 on the route Muthukur to Badvel, checking staff checked the bus and found that he had committed certain irregularities with regard to the issuance of ticket and issued a charge memo on the spot on 18.06.1999 and then on 25.06.1999 charge sheet was also issued. The main allegation is that he failed to issue ticket to one passenger. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.06.1999 denying the charges and an enquiry was conducted, and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to him on 21.10.1999. But, without considering his explanation to the show cause notice, a removal order was passed against him on 29.11.1999. Against the said removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 13.12.1999 before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Cuddapah(Appellate authority) and the same was rejected, against that he filed a review before the 2nd respondent on 01.02.2000. It is further contended that after considering the review petition, second respondent has passed an order appointing the petitioner as conductor Grade-II afresh with immediate effect by proceedings dated 08.02.2000. The petitioner contends that the order of second respondent appointing him afresh is illegal and arbitrary and challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not issue ticket to one passenger as he was in drunken state and he was sleeping in a seat in the back of the bus, which he did not notice. That plea was rightly not accepted by the concerned as the passengers in the bus at the relevant time were only three, including the person to whom he has not issued ticket. If there are only three passengers, it is impossible to believe that the petitioner did not notice one among them. In the above circumstances, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. However, by the date of termination, as the petitioner had put in more than 20 years of service, to avoid hardship to him, that would be caused on account of termination, fresh appointment without giving him benefit of his previous service can be granted to him. Thus, it is directed that the petitioner shall be given fresh appointment and the previous services of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration only for fixation of terminal benefits by treating that he had no break of service. It is once again made clear that the continuity of service shall be counted only for the purpose of fixation of terminal benefits and the petitioner shall not be entitled for any emoluments for the period he had not worked, i.e., between the period of his termination and fresh appointment. In case he attained the age of superannuation by now, it shall be treated that he worked till the date of superannuation and that shall be only for the purpose of granting him terminal benefits. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 26th November 2010, Rns