HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10050 of 2010 Dated: 28-04-2010 Between: K.C.Nagi Reddy. … Petitioner And The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10050 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of termination, dated 09.11.2009, passed by the 3rd respondent-Depot Manager in Proceedings No.P1/1(108)/2009-RDG, as confirmed by the order, dated 21.04.2010, passed by the review authority in Proceedings No.PA/19(65)2010-Dy.CTM-A. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, dated 23rd of March 2009, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, on 13.04.2007, in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). 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. 3. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from his duties from 05.05.2009 onwards, his services were terminated by an order, dated 9th of November 2009, passed in proceedings No.P1/1(108)2009-RDG, forfeiting his security deposit. As against the said order, when the petitioner has filed review petition before the Regional Manager, Anantapur, the review authority has rejected the review petition by an order, dated 21st of April 2010, passed in Proceedings No.PA/19(65)2010-Dy.CTM-A. Hence, this writ petition. 4. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as much as his appointment was made after following the regular selection process, it is not open for the respondents to terminate his services without conducting any inquiry and without giving him opportunity. It is submitted that as the termination is not termination simplicitor, but is based on the alleged misconduct, the respondents ought to have conducted inquiry after issuing notice to him. The learned counsel also 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 has fairly conceded that the subject matter of the case is covered to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. 5. I have also perused the order passed by the primary authority. From a perusal of the order, it is evident that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity before passing the order of termination. As much as the petitioner was appointed after following the regular process for selection, when his services are to be terminated, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to conduct inquiry before passing the order of termination. Even the appellate authority has not considered the matter on merits. The judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, dated 23rd of March 2009, also supports the case of the petitioner. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of termination, dated 09.11.2009, passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.P1/1(108)2009-RDG, and the order of the review authority, dated 21.04.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.PA/19(65)2010-Dy.CTM-A, are 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. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th April 2010 ajr