THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.5693 OF 2010 ORDER: The writ petitioner was selected after following the necessary procedure to be recruited as a Conductor and ever since March 2000 he was serving the respondent Corporation. But however, he abstained from duty between 09-11-2004 to 06-12-2004. Taking a serious exception to his absence, a show cause notice was issued on 07-12-2004 by the Depot Manager, proposing to delete his name from the list of selected candidates. The writ petitioner has filed his explanation thereto pleading that because of his ill health he could be on duty between 09-11-2004 to 06-12-2004. Apparently, the cause shown by the writ petitioner appears to have been a genuine and reasonable one. Therefore, the writ petitioner has been allowed to duty. But however, the Depot Manager lost his patience when he noticed that the writ petitioner was, once again, not attending to duty from 04-05-2005 onwards and hence, passed orders on 26-05-2005, deleting the name of the writ petitioner from the approved list of candidates for unsatisfactory performance. This order has been challenged before the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities unsuccessfully. Hence, this writ petition has been instituted. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. Sri Narasimha Goud would submit that the show cause notice, which has been issued called for an explanation from the writ petitioner for his absence from duty between 09-11-2004 to 06-12-2004 and when he has shown cause, obviously, the explanation found favour with the Depot Manager as for genuine reasons he could not attend to duties during the said spell. However, when he went to village to attend on his ailing father, he could not attend to duties from 04-05-2005 onwards once again. Since, his father has died on 06-05-2005, the writ petitioner could not get out of the village without completing the rituals that followed the death of his father. In the process, he could not attend to duties till 26- 05-2005. Without affording any opportunity, whatsoever, as was done on the previous occasion, the Depot Manager has straightaway proceeded to pass orders on 26-05-2005, deleting his name from the approved list of candidates, in effect, this order resulted in preventing the writ petitioner discharging the duties as a Conductor, with the respondent Corporation. It is apt to notice that the latter part of the alleged misconduct of his absence from duty from 04-05-2005 to 26-05-2005, has not been the subject matter of the show cause notice. It could not have obviously been, since the show cause notice was issued for the first spell of absence as on 09-12-2004. Therefore, plainly, the impugned order passed by the Depot Manager on 26-05- 2005, has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Unfortunately, the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities could not rectify this manifest error apparent on the face of the record. Even while dealing with the contract employees, the Corporation itself has taken a policy decision not to terminate their services for any misconduct including unauthorized absenteeism without conducting an enquiry and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the writ petitioner’s services have been brought to an end without following, in any manner, the principles of natural justice. Hence, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed on 26-05-2005 by the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., HCU Depot, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, so as to enable the 3rd respondent to reengage the services of the writ petitioner once again. Thirty days time is granted to the Depot Manager to reengage the services of the writ petitioner. Since, the writ petitioner has rendered considerable length of service between March 2000 up to May 2005, the same may be taken into consideration for the purpose of regularization of his service, if any such exercise is indulged in with regard to similarly situated candidates as that of the writ petitioner. This length of service may also be given credit to for computation of terminal benefits if the same is done in case of similarly placed persons, but however, the writ petitioner will not be entitled to any monitory benefit from 26-05-2005 up to his reengagement pursuant to this order passed today. In other words, the interregnum period will not inure any benefit, whatsoever, to the petitioner. However, for the purpose of regularization, the case of the writ petitioner shall be deemed and treated to stand on the same footing as that of an employee, who is reinstated with the benefit of continuity of service. With this, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 7th February 2011.