HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10298 of 2010 Dated: 29-04-2010 Between: U.S.Usman Basha. … Petitioner And The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10298 of 2010 ORDER: As it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that similar matters were already disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is also disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer : “to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.P1/1(47)/2008-KDG, dated 11.09.2008 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Driver in the Corporation by extending all the benefits on par with similar Drivers.” 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), in the month of May, 2007, and is posted in the 3rd respondent Depot. It is stated that though the appointments are made initially on contract basis, but such appointments are made after following the due procedure prescribed for selection of regular candidates, and as per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the persons employed on contract basis will be absorbed into regular service, as and when the vacancies arise. 4. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 15.06.2008 onwards, his services were terminated, by an order, dated 11.09.2008, issued by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.P1/1(47)/2008- KDG. It is the case of the petitioner that as the termination is based on the alleged misconduct, the order is termination is illegal, as the same was not preceded by any inquiry and notice. The learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. Even the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submit that similar such matters were allowed by this Court. 5. I have also perused the order of termination. The impugned order of termination is passed on the ground that the petitioner was absent from his duties from 15.06.2008 onwards, without any permission. From a perusal of the impugned order of termination, it is clear that no notice was served on the petitioner and no inquiry was conducted before passing the said order. When orders are passed terminating the petitioner’s services on the ground of alleged misconduct, respondents ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under law. This Court, by an order, dated 23rd March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, held that to terminate the services of even a contract employee on the allegation of misconduct, an inquiry is to be conducted, after issuing notice. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no such inquiry is conducted according to the Regulations, by giving opportunity to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, and in view of the order, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the impugned order of termination is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the proceedings, dated 11.09.2008, issued by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.P1/1(47)/2008-KDG is set aside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Driver on contract basis. It is made clear that on such reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Drivers, appointed along with him. It is also made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th April 2010 ajr