IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2453 of 2009 Between: Guttula Jaganmohana Rao S/o.Narasimha Setty 3-134, Illapakurru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Depot Manager, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Office order made in No.St/2(06)/208-NSP, dated 10.07.08 by the 1st respondent herein terminating the service of the petitioner without conducting enquiry which is culminated in the Proceedings No.PA/675(85)/2008- RM-Wg, dated 27.10.2008 of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same directing the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner into the service with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.RAZAK Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a driver in respondents Corporation on contract basis. His services came to be terminated without there being any enquiry. The proceedings under which the services of the petitioner came to be terminated are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Sanding Counsel for APSRTC received notice on behalf of the respondents Corporation. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents Corporation. 4. The factual aspect of termination of the petitioner from service without conducting any enquiry is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation. A Circular No.PD- 05/2009, dated 23.02.2009 issued by the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director of the respondents Corporation has been placed on record. As per the said circular even in case of the contract drivers and conductors, a regular departmental enquiry is required to be conducted before termination of their services. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the circular, which reads as hereunder: “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 & ticket irregularities and other serious misconducts, is attached, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted and further action has to be taken. Under the above circumstances, the issue has once again been reviewed and the following further instructions are issued in regard to the procedure to be followed while dealing with the disciplinary cases of contract Drivers and Conductors. A list of acts which constitute misconduct and detrimental to the interest of the Organization, for which a contract employee can be charged, is at Annexure-I.” 5. In view of the said circular, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition reserving liberty to the respondents Corporation to conduct departmental enquiry, if so advised, in accordance with the guidelines issued in the Circular dated 23.02.2009. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:05th March, 2009. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}