THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10471 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’), has questioned the order of termination dated 26.09.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. P2/1(72)/06-Q2 and the order of the appellate authority in proceedings No.PA/19(51)/2007-RM-Q, dated 29.05.2007. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in the Corporation in 2006, 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 order dated 26.09.2006 on the ground that he unauthorizedly absented from duty on 24.09.2006 and 25.09.2006. Against the order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal/review petition before the Regional Manager of the Corporation, Kurnool Region, who, by his order dated 29.05.2007, allowed the appeal/review petition in part and ordered re- engagement of the petitioner as a fresh driver. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not attend to his duties as he suffered from Chikoon guniya, and therefore, the period of his absence cannot be treated as unauthorized. In any event, the respondents ought not to have passed the orders without conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing. It is his further case that in view of the direction issued by the appellate authority, he was deprived of his seniority in the category of contract driver for the purpose of absorption. 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 orders, dated 26.09.2006 and 29.05.2007 passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively, are 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 order of termination, the order of the appellate authority and the instructions issued by the Corporation in the above-mentioned Circular. It is to be noted that, according to the petitioner, he absented from duty only on two days as he suffered from chikun guniya. In terms of the contractual obligations, when an allegation is levelled against the petitioner that he absented himself from attending the duty, 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 29.05.2007 passed by the 1st respondent, is set aside, to the extent of treating the petitioner as a fresh driver after his reengagement. It is directed that the respondents shall extend the benefit of seniority to the petitioner in contract service from the date of his initial appointment. 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