HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27907 of 2009 Dated: 23-04-2010 Between: L. N. Rao. … Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27907 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in terminating the petitioner’s services, vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.01/2(6)/07-RVPM, dated 01.08.2007, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide Proceedings No.PA/20(181)/2007-RM:EG, dated 01.02.2008, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in March 2006. On 17.06.2007, while he was driving the bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-5083 on the route from Ravulapalem to Bhimavaram, an accident occurred, resulting in the death of a lady. On the ground that the said accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has passed the orders, dated 01.08.2007, in proceedings No.01/2(6)/07-RVPM, terminating the petitioner from service. As against the said order of termination, the petitioner has filed a review before the 2nd respondent, on the ground that he was not given the prior notice and opportunity before passing the order of termination. The review was also rejected by the 2nd respondent, by his proceedings, dated PA/20(181)/2007-RM:EG, dated 01.02.2008. Hence, the present writ petition. During the course of arguments, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, that the subject matter of this writ petition is covered to be disposed of in terms of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, dated 23.03.2009. From a perusal of the order of termination, it is evident that it is not the termination simplicitor, but termination alleging misconduct on the part of the petitioner, which cannot be passed without conducting any inquiry and without giving an opportunity to him. In that view of the matter, and following the order, dated 23.03.2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 01.08.2007 and 01.02.2008, are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is needless to state that on reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled to seniority and all other benefits, extended to the persons appointed along with him, on contract basis. However, 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 an inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd April 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (b/o) ghn/ajr