HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.17539 of 2009 Date: April 23, 2010 Between: M. Yeseph, S/o. M. Dora Swamy, Aged 38 years, Occ: Contract Conductor, C.35236, R/o.11/85, CSI Compound, Yadiki village and Mandal, Anantapur District … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Region, Anantapur, Anantapur District, and another … Respondents Order: The petitioner, who was appointed as Conductor on contract basis in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition questioning proceedings No.PA/675(127)/08-RM: A, dated 22-08-2008 issued by the first respondent and also proceedings No.02/95(65)2008-TDP, dated 28-03-2008 of the second respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on contract basis in the respondent-Corporation on 07-05-2007. In the respondent-Corporation, as per the practice in vogue, appointments are made on contract basis by following regular selection process and later on, such appointees are absorbed into regular service as and when vacancies arise. While so, when the petitioner was on duty on 20-03-2008, on the bus bearing No.AP10Z-1868, on the route from Yadiki to Gooty, a check was exercised by the Vigilance and Enforcement Squad at stage No.13, i.e. Gooty. On the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities and was also found in a drunken condition, his services were terminated by the second respondent, Depot Manager, Tadipatri, by proceedings dated 28-03-2008. As against the same, the petitioner filed a representation/review petition before the first respondent, Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Region, who, by proceedings dated 22-08-2008, rejected the said representation. Hence, this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was appointed on contract basis, selections have been made by following the process contemplated for selection of candidates into regular service of the Corporation. It is stated that as much as his services are terminated by alleging misconduct on his part, it was not open to the respondents to have done so, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to him. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in identical circumstances, this court, in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, set aside the order of termination of the petitioner therein, by order dated 23-03-2009. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation admits the same. I have perused a copy of the order of termination of the services of the petitioner. It is not a termination simplicitor. By the said order, misconduct is attributed to the petitioner; namely, he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities and was in a drunken condition, when the check was exercised. When the termination is based on misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the primary authority ought not to have passed the order of termination without conducting enquiry and putting the petitioner on notice. Even the first respondent/reviewing authority has not taken the said aspect into consideration and merely rejected the representation of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons and also in view of the order dated 23-03-2009 passed by this court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, this writ petition is allowed and proceedings No.PA/675(127)/08- RM: A, dated 22-08-2008 issued by the first respondent and also proceedings No.02/95(65)2008-TDP, dated 28-03-2008 of the second respondent are set aside. Further, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Conductor on contract basis. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits that are extended to similarly placed contract employees. However, if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking necessary action against him in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 23, 2010 MRR