HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.27904 of 2009 Date: March 4, 2010 Between: K.R. Krishna, C-65249, Driver, S/o.Venkatapathi, aged 40 years, APSRTC, Ravulapalem Depot, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District … Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and two others … Respondents Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order, dated 29-06-2007, issued in proceedings No.01/2(3)/07-RVPM, by the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ravulapalem-3rd respondent, terminating the petitioner from service, as confirmed by the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., East Godavari Division, 2nd respondent, by an order, dated 01-02-2008, issued in proceedings No.PA/20/(177) 2007 -RM:EG. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corportion, after following the regular procedure for selection. On 24-12-2006, when he was driving the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 5082, he drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of a person. In view of the accident, a police case was registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, without conducting any independent departmental enquiry, the 2nd respondent has terminated the petitioner from service, by an order, dated 29-06-2007, issued in proceedings No.01/2(3)/07-RVPM, on the ground that he was negligent in driving the bus on 24-12-2006, which resulted in the death of a person. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., East Godavari-2n d respondent, who rejected the same, by an order, dated 01-02-2008, issued in proceedings No.PA/20/(177) 2007-RM:EG, on the ground that there are no valid reasons worth consideration. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders, which are passed without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice, cast stigma on the career of the petitioner. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the order, dated 23.03.2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that termination of the petitioner therein without conducting enquiry and without issuing notice, is illegal, and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner therein into service, with liberty to the respondents therein to hold enquiry. Therefore, he prays to pass similar orders in the present writ petition. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly conceded the above position. 4. Even a perusal of the impugned order of termination, dated 29-06-2007, shows that the said order is passed without conducting any enquiry and also without issuing any notice to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the respondents for terminating the petitioner from service. 5. Following the order, dated 23.03.2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the impugned orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to hold appropriate enquiry into the allegation leveled against the petitioner, in accordance with Rules. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 4, 2010 MRR