HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8118 of 2010 Dated: 13-04-2010 Between: D.V.Subbaiah. … Petitioner And The Regional Office, APSRTC, rep. by its Regional Manager, Prakasam Region, Ongole & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8118 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the similar such writ petitions are earlier allowed by this Court, this writ petition is also disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, in the respondent Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). As per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, appointments are made, at first instance, on contract basis by following the regular procedure, but as and when the vacancies arose, such persons are absorbed into regular service. The petitioner was discharging his duties as a contract Driver. On the ground that he caused an accident while driving the vehicle bearing No.AP-10-Z-5991 at Edamakallu village on 07.08.2007, the service of the petitioner was terminated by an order, dated 3rd October 2007, issued in Proceedings No.01/2(12)/2007-GDLR. As against the same, he filed a representation/appeal before the Regional Manager, who also, by an order, dated 3rd January 2008, passed in Proceedings No.PA/675(171)/2007-RM(O), confirmed the order of termination. Hence, this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was not at fault, without conducting inquiry, and without giving any opportunity to him, the impugned order of termination is passed, attributing negligence on his part in driving the vehicle bearing No.AP-10-Z-5991. It is submitted that the Corporation itself has issued Circular instructions, dated 25th January 2005, in Circular No.PD-03/2005, as per which, a regular inquiry has to be conducted before terminating the services of even the temporary employees, on the charges causing stigma on them. The petitioner has also relied on a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7449 of 2001, dated 3rd June 2002, wherein, in identical circumstances, a learned Single Judge has held that when certain allegations are levelled against an employee, causing stigma on him, his services cannot be terminated without conducting inquiry and without giving opportunity. In the said writ petition, orders are issued for reinstatement of the petitioner. Even in the present writ petition, it is fairly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation that before passing the impugned order of termination, no inquiry is conducted and no opportunity was given to the petitioner. Though it is open to the respondents to terminate an employee appointed on contract basis, in terms of the contract, but when an allegation is made stating that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner, which resulted in the accident, the respondents cannot terminate his services unless an inquiry is conducted and he is given an opportunity. Such termination is even against the circular instructions issued by the Corporation itself in Circular No. PD-03/2005, dated 25.01.2005. For the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the judgment of this Court, dated 03.06.2002, in W.P.No.7449 of 2001, referred above, which squarely covers the issue in the present writ petition, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of termination, dated 03.10.2007, passed by the Depot Manager, Giddalur, in Proceedings No.01/2(12)/2007-GDLR, and also the order of the Regional Manager, dated 03.01.2008, passed in Proceedings No.PA/675(171)/ 2007-RMO, with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and extend all the benefits which are extended to the similarly placed contract Drivers. 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 rules. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th April 2010 ajr