JUDGMENT
A. Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 12043 of 1983 has filed this writ appeal. He was appointed as Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh Stale Road Transport Corporation on December 4, 1968 and his services were regularised on October 1, 1972. On December 22, 1973 he was transferred from Hyderabad Division to Kurnool Division. On May 18, 1979 while he was working as Conductor in Yemmiganur Depot, he was asked to conduct the Bus bearing Registration No. APZ 8985 plying on the route Yemmiganur to Hyderabad, which was checked and consequently disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for the following charges:
“(1) For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of 10 adult passengers and 11 chargeable children passengers found travelling without tickets from Madhavaram to Yerragera, ex. stages 11 to 9.
(2). For having closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations in the SR upto stage Number 10 without completing the above ticket issues.
(3) For having failed to observe the rule “Is
sue & Start’.”
Under Regulation 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 the acts or omissions which constitute misconduct have been enumerated. One such misconduct is as follows.
“28. (vi)(a). Failure on the part of the Conductor to issue valid passengers ticket, in accordance with the order passed by the Corporation or any other authority under the Corporation, from time to time, before starting or allowing a bus to be started from the point where such passenger boarded in respect of mofussil services, and before passing a Ticket Issue Completion Point, fixed from time to time in respect of City/Town Services.
(ix)(a) Gross negligence resulting in or likely to result in serious loss to the Corporation or inconvenience to the public or both;
(b) Neglect of duty resulting in or likely to result in danger to the lives of employees or of other persons or both;”
2. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the Corporation found the employee guilty of all the three charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, viz., the Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Yemmiganur, accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of removal from service.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Depot Manager, the employee preferred appeal to the Divisional Manager, Kurnool Division. He confirmed the order of removal. Questioning the validity of that order, he filed a Review Petition before the Regional Manager, Cuddapah Region. He, in turn, passed the following order on January 21, 1981 :
“I have gone through the review petition and other concerned records. I find that the action of the Depot Manager was based on well established charges. The plea of the petitioner is not tenable and the grounds of reasoning are not valid. There is therefore no need to interfere with the orders of the Depot Manager. But only on compassionate grounds, I am inclined to take a lenient view in consideration of his long service. I, therefore, hereby order that the petitioner be appointed afresh as a, conductor and is directed to report to Divisional Manager, Anantapur within 15 days of receipt of these proceedings, failing which the proceedings are deemed to have been cancelled.”
Pursuant to this order, the appellant herein joined service as a fresh employee on February 15, 1981. Thereafter, he preferred revision to the Corporation under Regulation 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. It was rejected on March 5, 1981. Thereafter, he filed Writ Petition No. 12043/1983, out of which this appeal arises.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the order passed by the Regional Manager is the one modifying the punishment of removal by substituting the punishment of fresh appointment in
lieu of it Such a punishment is not the one contemplated under Regulation 8 of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967, and therefore the order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Nanjundaradhya v. Enquiry Officer 1985 (3) SLR 592 (Karnataka) and the two unreported Judgments of this Court dated November 24, 1987 in Writ Petition No. 11263 of 1983 and dated February 3, 1987 in Writ Petition No. 9786 of 1984 respectively. We cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel having regard to the contents of the order passed by the Regional Manager dated January 21, 1981. He categorically stated that the action of the Depot Manager removing the appellant from service was based on well established charges. He further clarified that the order of removal does not call for interference. Thus, he has confirmed the order of removal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of removal passed by the Depot Manager and confirmed by the appellate authority was modified by the Regional Manager. However, while confirming the order of removal, what he did was this. He directed that the employee may be appointed afresh as Conductor. In pursuance of that order, the employee joined service as a fresh candidate on February 15, 1981.
5. The order passed by the Regional Manager consists of two parts. The first part relates to the confirmation of the order of removal. The second part relates to a direction for appointment as a fresh candidate. The order of removal is no bar for appointment as a fresh candidate. The Regional Manager has clearly stated that on compassionate grounds a direction has been issued to appoint the employee as a fresh candidate. So long as the order of punishment stands, it cannot be said that the reviewing authority had either modified the order of punishment or in any other way interfered with it. So long as the order of removal stands, question of claiming the benefit of his past service because of his appointment as a fresh candidate will not arise. In those circumstances, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel have no application to the facts of this case. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.