THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10441 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 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 who was working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) in its 3rd respondent Depot, has questioned the order of termination dated 09.04.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No. P1/1(31)/07-DVRM. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in the Corporation on 20.04.2007 by the duly constituted Selection Committee, after following the regular procedure provided in the Service Regulations for selection of regular candidates. In the Corporation, as per the practice in vogue, as and when vacancies arise, such candidates are being absorbed into regular service. The petitioner’s services were terminated by the impugned order dated 09.04.2008 on the ground that he unauthorizedly absented from duty from 31.10.2007 to 12.11.2007 and again from 05.04.2008 to 09.04.2008. 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 09.04.2008 by the 3rd respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation itself has issued instructions vide Circular bearing No.PD 5/2010, dated 23.02.2010, according to which, before terminating the services of the contract employees, regular enquiry must be conducted into the allegations levelled against them. Therefore, the order, dated 09.04.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent, is in violation of the instructions issued by the Corporation in the said Circular apart from the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. 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. I have perused the copy of the termination order and the instructions issued by the Corporation in the above-mentioned Circular. Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, the order, dated 09.04.2008 is not a termination simplicitor. In terms of the contractual obligations, when an allegation is levelled against the petitioner that he absented himself from duty from 31.10.2007 to 12.11.2007 and again from 05.04.2008 to 09.04.2008, the respondents ought to have conducted an enquiry by giving an opportunity of personal hearing. When the allegation casts a stigma on the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the respondents to conduct enquiry into the same. In similar circumstances, this Court vide its order, dated 23.03.2009 in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, 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 23.03.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 09.04.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent, is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and extend the benefit of seniority in the service rendered by the petitioner, as a contract driver, from the date of his initial appointment for regularization and other benefits. It is made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting enquiry against him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th April 2010. ksld