IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26741 of 2007 Between: Ch. Bullabbai, E-81866, Tyre Mechanic S/o. Late Padma Raju R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, West Godavari Region, At Eluru, W.G. District. 3 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Dy. C.M.E. West Godavari Region, At Eluru, W.G. District. 4 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Bhimavaram, W.G. District. .....RESPONDENT (S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in removing the petitioner from service vide Proc. No. 01/1(88)/2007-BVRM, Bhimavaram dt.14-11-2007 as high handed and arbirary action without jurisdiction contrary to Regulations, against to the principles of natual justice and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26741 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in removing the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 14.11.2007 as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 14.11.2007 on the ground that he was absented from duty from 22.10.2007 to 29.10.2007. While issuing the impugned proceedings, the respondents have also taken into consideration the subsequent misconduct of absenteeism of the petitioner, without framing any charge and without conducting any enquiry. I am of the opinion that on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. The respondents could not have removed the petitioner by considering the subsequent misconduct without issuing any notice or conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. Now it is given to understand that in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court on 13.12.2007, petitioner has already been reinstated into service. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 10.9.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26741 of 2007 10.9.2008