HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7870 of 2010 Dated: 19-04-2010 Between: Aeitha Veeresha Lingam. … Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice-Chairman /Managing Director & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7870 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. As similar matters were already disposed of, in view of the request made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at admission stage. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 10.03.2007 in the 3rd respondent Depot, on contract basis. It is submitted that as he suffered jaundice, he could not attend to his duties for the period from 16.04.2008 to 08.05.2008. On the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent, his service was terminated by an order, dated 12.05.2008, passed by the Depot Manager, Medak, in Proceedings No.P2/1(9)/08-MDK. As against the said order, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Regional Manager of Medak Region at Sangareddy. The said authority, by an order, dated 22.10.2008, passed in Proceedings No.PA/20(10)/2008-RM:MR, allowed the appeal in part, to the extent of setting aside the termination order with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and to treat his service as a fresh employment. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the order of appellate authority to the extent adverse to him, on the ground that no inquiry is conducted before termination of his service and that he is entitled for seniority in the contract service, from the date of his initial appointment. It is submitted that as much as the appointments are made on contract basis after following regular procedure for selections, respondents have got no authority to terminate the contract service, more so, by making a stigma on the petitioner that he has unauthorisedly absented from duties. I have perused the order, dated 12th May 2008, passed by the Depot Manager, Medak, whereby, the petitioner’s services were terminated. Though it is alleged that the petitioner has unauthorisedly absented for the period from 16.04.2008 to 08.05.2008, but it appears that no inquiry is conducted and no opportunity is given to the petitioner before passing the said order. In contract service, while it is open to the respondents to terminate the services simpliciter, but when an allegation of unauthorized absence is made, termination cannot be ordered without conducting inquiry and without giving opportunity. In similar circumstances, this Court, by an order, dated 21st of August 2001, passed in W.P.No.8685 of 2001, has set aside the order of termination and ordered for reinstatement of the employee. Even in this case, though the petitioner has filed appeal, but he is not given the relief to the extent of setting aside the order of termination in its entirety, by giving the benefit of seniority in the contract service. In this case also, the primary authority has not conducted any inquiry before issuing the impugned order of termination. It is also to be examined that the Corporation has issued circulars from time to time, according to which, inquiry is to be conducted, even for terminating the services of the employees appointed on contract basis. Therefore, the impugned order is not only against the principles of natural justice, but also against the circular instructions issued by the Corporation itself. In that view of the matter, following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8685 of 2001, dated 21st August 2001, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the order of the appellate authority to the extent of directing the respondents to treat the reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh appointment. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits of contract service as a Conductor and to the benefits, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Conductors, appointed along with him. However, it is made clear that if there is any mis- conduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not prelude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th April 2010 ajr