THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8886 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and as it is submitted by both the learned counsel that similar such matters were disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. In this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in February, 2007. In the Corporation, as per the practice in vogue, as and when vacancies arise, such candidates are being absorbed into regular service. On the ground that the petitioner remained absent to duty from 17.09.2008 onwards, the third respondent – Depot Manager, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, terminated his services vide order, dated 15.11.2008. As against the said order, he filed a review petition before the second respondent – Regional Manager, Karimnagar, who in turn, rejected the same vide proceedings, dated 10.02.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that though his services were terminated on the ground of absenteeism, no enquiry is conducted and no notice is issued to him before passing the order, dated 15.11.2008 by the third respondent. It is submitted that as the finding recorded in the order, dated 15.11.2008 casts stigma on the petitioner, the third respondent ought not to have passed the said order without conducting any enquiry into the allegation levelled against him and giving him an opportunity of personal hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order, dated 17.03.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4499 of 2010. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that similar such matters were disposed of by this Court keeping it open to the respondents to conduct regular enquiry as per law. From a perusal of the order, dated 15.11.2008 passed by the third respondent, it appears that before passing such order, no enquiry is conducted into the allegation levelled against the petitioner and no opportunity is given to him. Though it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, the order, dated 15.11.2008, is not a termination simplicitor. In terms of the contractual obligations, when an allegation is levelled against the petitioner that he remained absent to duty from 17.09.2008 onwards, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry by giving him an opportunity of personal hearing. When the allegation casts stigma on the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the respondents to conduct enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and give him an opportunity. In similar circumstances, this Court vide its order, dated 17.03.2010 in W.P.No.4499 of 2010, set aside the order of termination keeping it open to the respondents to conduct enquiry, if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons and following the order, dated 17.03.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4499 of 2010, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 15.11.2008 passed by the third respondent and the proceedings, dated 10.02.2009 issued by the second respondent are hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, which are extended to the similarly placed employees. It is made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry against him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th APRIL, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni