Judgment : The petitioner, a contract Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), was initially removed from service by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, under termination order dated 10.9.2008. The basis for this order was that the petitioner had caused a fatal accident on the service route Vellore to Kurnool on 6.8.2008. His review petition before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool region, met with failure when it was rejected under order dated 1.11.2008. He thereupon approached this Court by way of W.P.No. 3026 of 2009. The said writ petition was allowed on 25.3.2009 taking note of the fact that the petitioner's services were terminated without holding an enquiry. The petitioner was accordingly directed to be reinstated in service as a Driver on contract basis. The APSRTC was however given liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated in service by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, under proceedings dated 6.6.2009. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge-sheet dated 23.6.2009. The two (2) charges leveled against the petitioner pertained to the fatal accident allegedly caused by him on 6.8.2008. He was placed under 'put off duty' by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, under order dated 23.6.2009 and ultimately, the Depot Manager issued notification dated 22.10.2009 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from that date. The petitioner claims to have filed review petition dated 16.7.2010 before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, but as the same failed to evoke any response, he filed this Writ Petition. In the mean while, the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool, by judgment dated 1.7.2010 passed in C.C.No.492 of 2009, acquitted the petitioner of offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC in relation to the fatal accident that occurred on 6.8.2008. As there was no consistency in the APSRTC's implementation of the orders of this Court passed in similar matters, this Court passed the following order on 10.7.2012. As there was no consistency in the APSRTC's implementation of the orders of this Court passed in similar matters, this Court passed the following order on 10.7.2012. "Learned Standing Counsel shall file an affidavit explaining as to why, in spite of similar observations being made in the orders of this Court while setting aside removal orders passed without enquiry that it shall be open to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to initiate disciplinary proceedings afresh in accordance with procedure, the APSRTC picks and chooses the matters in which it would abide by the said observation and act upon it and in certain cases ignore it altogether and direct reinstatement straightaway. Affidavit to be filed within two weeks. Post on 24.7.2012." Pursuant to this order, the Managing Director of the APSRTC, Sri A.K. Khan, filed an affidavit wherein he stated as under: "12. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.7274/2011 had caused a fatal accident resulting in the death of one person and injuries to another. It is submitted that as per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, in all cases where the drivers are involved in fatal accidents and if there is prima-facie evidence in the preliminary enquiry report that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, such driver will be placed under suspension in the interest of public invoking the provisions of Regulation 18 of APSRTC Employees' (CC & A). He will not be allowed to perform duty on line. After conducting detailed enquiry if it is proved that the accident occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the services of such driver will be terminated by the Depot Manager. The appellate authorities consider such cases only based on the past accident free service record of the drivers. 13. After conducting detailed enquiry if it is proved that the accident occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the services of such driver will be terminated by the Depot Manager. The appellate authorities consider such cases only based on the past accident free service record of the drivers. 13. It is submitted that though this Hon'ble Court has given liberty to conduct enquiry and to take action on the allegations made against the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court, further disciplinary action was initiated in respect of certain contract Crew based on the gravity of the offences committed by them and the other were let off without initiating any further action after their reinstatement in compliance with the directive of this Hon'ble Court." It is however to be noticed that no standards or norms have been prescribed by the APSRTC with regard to exercise of discretion by the Regional Managers and Depot Managers as to which offences would be deemed to be grave enough to warrant further action. On the other hand, some of the cases which have come before this Court pertaining to contract drivers reflect that even in cases where the contract drivers were accused of rash and negligent driving resulting in deaths, the APSRTC's Regional Managers took a lenient view and permitted their reinstatement in service as fresh drivers. Obviously, there is no set standard for deciding these matters at the level of the Regional Managers in the APSRTC. Needless to state, it cannot depend upon the whims and fancies of the Regional Managers to pick and choose in which cases pertaining to a contract driver or a contract conductor, an offence would be grave enough to warrant stringent action and in which cases it could be overlooked permitting re-engagement of the said employee on fresh basis. A case in point is the discriminatory treatment of B. Sammaiah and N. Sudhakar, identically situated drivers, by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal. Their cases no doubt arose in a different context but the orders passed in their individual cases amply demonstrate the arbitrariness in exercise of discretion by the Regional Manager. A case in point is the discriminatory treatment of B. Sammaiah and N. Sudhakar, identically situated drivers, by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal. Their cases no doubt arose in a different context but the orders passed in their individual cases amply demonstrate the arbitrariness in exercise of discretion by the Regional Manager. It would be necessary for the higher echelons in the APSRTC to bestow attention to this aspect of the matter so that the discretion of the Regional Managers while exercising review power is conditioned by some consistent norms and the issue is not left to the whimsical and arbitrary choice of such Regional Managers. Insofar as the present case is concerned, though the petitioner was charged with rash and negligent driving both in the disciplinary as well as the criminal proceedings, he was acquitted in the criminal proceedings while the APSRTC chose to take a more serious view in the disciplinary proceedings. Once he was acquitted of the criminal charge in this regard, the APSRTC cannot insist upon treating the charge against the petitioner as a grave offence warranting his removal from service. As stated earlier, similarly situated contract drivers were granted the relief of reinstatement in service as fresh drivers by the APSRTC itself and upon their filing writ petitions before this Court, my learned brother, Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, disposed of W.P.No.2786 of 2012 and batch on 29.2.2012 with certain directions. Paragraph (3) of the said directions would have application in the present case and reads as under: "There are also cases where the orders of termination are challenged, either before the appellate/revisional authorities or before this Court, after six or seven years of date of termination. In all such cases the benefit of continuity of service without any monetary benefit and re-engagement so ordered in para (1) shall be available to only to such of those employees who have approached the appellate/revisional authorities or this Court within three years from the date of termination." In terms of the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the APSRTC to re-engage the petitioner in service as a contract driver and extend to him the benefit of continuity of service only for the purpose of regularization in service. He would not be entitled to any monetary benefits pursuant to the relief granted by this Court. He would not be entitled to any monetary benefits pursuant to the relief granted by this Court. WPMP No.9060 of 2011 no longer survives for consideration in the light of this final order and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.