THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.6576 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The case of the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is that he was appointed as daily wage driver in the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State road Transport Corporation, Warangal Region, Warangal (for short ‘the Corporation) in the month of December, 1994 and in the month of February, 1995, he was removed from service on the ground that he produced a bogus driving licence. Based on the report of the Depot Manager, Parkal Depot, a case in crime no.99/1995 on the ﬁle of Parkal Police Station under Section 420 of I.P.C. was registered and after filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on ﬁle as C.C.No.598/1997 on the ﬁle of IV Additional Junior Fist Class Magistrate, Warangal. The case of the petitioner in that he was selected as daily wage driver in the interviews held in the month of September, 1997 and formal appointment order was given on 19.7.1997 and after completing the training, he was posted in Parkal Depot and he joined duty on 4.2.1998 and that when he was working in Parkal Depot, he was disengaged from December, on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case and as per Regulation 7 of APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1996 (for short ‘the Service Regulations’), no person shall be eligible for appointment to any post in service by Direct Recruitment unless he should be free from adverse remarks on character and antecedents . The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.3.2001 stating that the criminal case ended in acquittal. Not being satisﬁed with the explanation, the Personal Oﬃcer of the respondent – Corporation issued the impugned proceedings no.P3/P2/852(1)/2000-RM:WL dated 24.3.2001 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that no enquiry, as contemplated under the Service Regulations, was conducted and hence removing the petitioner from service without conducting enquiry amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and hence sought to set aside the impugned order. 4. No counter affidavit is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this court in W.P.No.18803/2004 dated 29.10.2004 wherein this court in similar facts and circumstances, directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates and continue to engage him on the basis of the availability of work on the same terms and conditions in which he used to be engaged prior to the deletion of his name from the list of selected candidates. It was further observed that the respondents may conduct regular enquiry and pass appropriate orders. 6. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage driver in the respondent – Corporation in the month of December, 1994 and in the month of February, 1995, he was removed from service on the ground that he produced bogus driving licence and a case in C.C.No.598/1987 on the ﬁle of IV Additional Junior First Class Magistrate, Warangal was ﬁled and the said case ended in acquittal by judgment dated 31.7.2000. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner attended interview for the post of driver, held in the month of September, 1997 and he was provisionally selected and after completion of training, he was posted at Parkal Depot and he joined duty on 4.2.1998. From this it is clear that the petitioner has become a regular employee of the Corporation. When the Corporation intends to disengage a regular employee, it ought to have conducted a detailed enquiry and based on the report, it can impose appropriate punishment. In the present case, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice dated 17.3.2001 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.3.2001 and not being satisﬁed with the same, impugned order of removal from service was passed. As enquiry was not conducted in compliance with the principals of natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. In similar circumstances, in W.P.No.18803/2004 where a driver was initially engaged on daily wage basis and subsequently selected on regular basis and was appointed as casual driver in the Corporation, for want of regular vacancy and whose name was deleted from the selected drivers, on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case, which eventually ended in acquittal and where no enquiry was conducted before deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates, this court by order dated 29.10.2004 held that deleting the name of the petitioner without conducting enquiry is not proper and accordingly granted the consequential beneﬁts. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “2. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was selected as a Driver through a Selection Committee as per the Regulations of the Corporation. The petitioner was appointed as a Casual Driver for want of regular vacancies. Since the petitioner was a regularly selected employee, an enquiry ought to have been conducted before imposing the punishment of deleting his name from the list of selected candidates. The second respondent instead of conducting an enquiry passed the impugned order only after issuing the show cause notice and receiving the explanation from the petitioner. Since the deletion of the name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates was done through the impugned order without conducting an enquiry, the order is liable to be set aside. 3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.9.2002 is set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates and continue to engage him on the basis of availability of the work on the same terms and conditions in which he used to engage prior to the deletion of his name from the list of selected candidates. 4. This order will not preclude the second respondent from conducting a regular enquiry against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders according to the rules.” 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order of this court dated 29.10.2004 in W.P.No.18803/2004, and as the impugned order dated 24.3.2001 was passed without conducting the enquiry, the same is set aside and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and continue to engage him on the basis of availability of the work on the same terms and conditions in which he used to be engaged prior to his disengagement. However, it is needless to observe that the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------- -------------------- 16— 10—2008