THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 778 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed on 09.03.2007 by the Depot Manager of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Tirupati Depot, terminating the contract of employment of the writ petitioner as a driver with the Corporation on the ground that he was not regular to duties and he fails to wear uniform while on duty and does not show courtesies to the passengers, fails to pick up passengers en route and to cap it, he drives the vehicle entrusted to him in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of liquor. It is manifestly clear from a perusal of the order passed by the Depot Manager on 09.03.2007 that it is purely punitive in nature and content. After all, before any such punitive order is passed, the 3rd respondent Depot Manager ought to have conducted a detailed enquiry by providing a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. Instead, he seems to have called for a report from the Superintendent (Traffic), Tirupati, who seems to have given an adverse report to the interests of the writ petitioner on 06.03.2007 and based thereon, the Depot Manager has proceeded to terminate the contract of employment of the writ petitioner. When appealed against and also when sought for reviewing the same, the appellate as well as the reviewing authorities have declined to interfere with the orders passed by the Depot Manager. It is a fundamental principle of law that no person should be condemned unheard of. If the service of an employee is terminated, it will impact him adversely. Therefore, if a punitive order of termination of employment is required to be passed, the same can be passed only after providing an opportunity for the employee to defend himself properly and reasonably. For the sheer failure of the Depot Manager to adhere to this basic principle of law, order passed by him on 09.03.2007 is unsustainable and deserves to be set at naught. In view of the basic infirmity of the orders of the Depot Manager, it is needless to observe that the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority also failed to cure the same and accordingly, they also deserve to be set at naught. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, when confronted with the fact situation, is fair enough to submit that even the service of a contract driver could not have been terminated without conducting an enquiry, as directed by the Corporation through their policy decision. Hence, he accords his consent for disposing of this Writ Petition right at this stage instead of confining it in this Court. The order dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Depot Manager, Tirupati, terminating the contract of employment of the writ petitioner as a driver is set at naught. The writ petitioner, however, will not be entitled to any monetary benefits till he is reengaged. Time for reengaging the writ petitioner is 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is explicitly made clear that it is open to the respondent Corporation to proceed against the writ petitioner in case there is sufficient cause or sufficient material for so doing. It is needless to observe that the writ petitioner would be entitled to count the past service rendered by him up to 09.03.2007 for benefits such as regularization and or terminal benefits. But he is not entitled to any monetary benefits. With this, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 24th January 2011 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}