Writ petition regarding regularization of service for a bus conductor whose removal was set aside on appeal. Court allowed counting of service excluding unauthorized absence period but denied monetary benefits.
Petitioner entitled to count service excluding unauthorized absence for regularization; no monetary benefits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21482 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner was engaged as Conductor on contract basis. Alleging that he remained absent unauthorizedly for about four months, the Depot Manager-2nd respondent passed an order directing removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The appeal was allowed on 12-082010 and the order of removal was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be re-engaged as conductor, afresh.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his past service is not being counted.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
It is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent conducted a detailed enquiry before passing the order of removal. The fact remains that the appellate authority found that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and directed appointment of the petitioner afresh. Though no procedural irregularity crept into the matter, it becomes clear that the punishment imposed against the petitioner does not find place in the regulations. Further, denial of the continuity of service would have its own impact for the petitioner in the context of regularization of service.
Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to count the service rendered by him, excluding the one during which he was absent or out of service for the limited purpose of regularization of service. He shall not be entitled for monetary benefits on account of such a facility. There shall be no order as to costs.
Prv
17-08-2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether past service rendered by the petitioner should be counted for regularization of service given the disproportionate punishment.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits in addition to regularization of service.
Petitioner
Deputy Manager-2nd
Appellate Authority/1st Respondent
L.Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
