IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 974 of 2009 Between: T. Aruna Giri S/o. Brahmaiah Tenali Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C. Dhamarapalli (P.O) Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director, RTC Cross Roads, Chikkadapali, Hyederabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tenali Depot, Tenali, Guntur District. 3 The Regional Manger APSRTC, Guntur, Guntur District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIJAY BABU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 23-07-2008 passed by respondent No.3, whereby he confirmed order dated 30-04-2008 passed by respondent No.2, terminating the services of the petitioner as contract driver of Tenali Depot. At the hearing, it is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that before terminating the services of the petitioner for allegedly misbehaving with the lady conductor, no charge sheet has been issued and formal enquiry was held. It is also admitted that the issue raised in this writ petition, namely; the legality of the order passed terminating the services of a workman without holding regular departmental enquiry is no longer res integra in view of the various orders passed by this Court in identical writ petitions, one such order being dated 23-03-2009 in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. In the said order, it is held as under- “As noted above, the ground of termination of the petitioner’s services was unauthorized absenteeism from 21.06.2008. The very allegation of unauthorized absence itself casts stigma to the workman. In addition to that the appellate authority categorically held that the petitioner was arrested and sent to remand in connection with the criminal case of waylaying and committing robbery. Admittedly, no enquiry was held and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the allegation of unauthorised absence. The Circular referred to above reads as under: “Instances have come to notice that the contract crew whose contract is terminated due to their involvement in absenteeism, accident/C&T irregularity cases are approaching the Courts and the Courts are pronouncing judgments that whenever stigma, like involvement in accident, cash and ticket irregularities and other serious misconducts, is attached, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted and further action has to be taken.” Having issued the Circular providing for a detailed enquiry, there is no justification to terminate the petitioner’s services without holding such enquiry. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the respondents that his absence was due to proper reasons, his absence cannot be treated as unauthorized absence warranting his removal. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with liberty to the respondents to hold an enquiry.” Since the issue raised in this writ petition is identical to the one decided by the above reproduced order, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with liberty to the respondents to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th April, 2009 vrn