THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13057 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and as it is submitted by both the learned counsel that similar such matters were disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. In this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in 2006. In the Corporation, as per the practice in vogue, as and when vacancies arise, such candidates are being absorbed into regular service. On the ground that the petitioner remained absent to duty from 09.11.2008 onwards, the third respondent – Depot Manager, Mahabubnagar, terminated his services vide order, dated 14.11.2008. As against the said order, he filed appeal on 17.11.2008 before the second respondent – Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar, who in turn, allowed the same in part by ordering reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh contract driver, vide proceedings, dated 05.03.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of the proceedings issued by the second respondent ordering his reinstatement into the services of the Corporation as a fresh contract driver, he loses his seniority and thereby affects his chances for absorption into the regular services of the Corporation. It is submitted that though his services were terminated on the ground of absenteeism, no enquiry is conducted and no notice is issued to him before passing the order, dated 14.11.2008 by the third respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order, dated 12.04.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that similar such matters were disposed of by this Court with the direction to the respondents to give benefit of continuity of contract service. Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, the order, dated 14.11.2008 is not a termination simplicitor. In terms of the contractual obligations, when an allegation is levelled against the petitioner that he remained absent to duty from 09.11.2008 onwards, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry by giving an opportunity of personal hearing. When the allegation casts stigma on the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the respondents to conduct enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and give him an opportunity. For the aforesaid reasons and following the order, dated 12.04.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010, the writ petition is disposed of and the proceedings, dated 05.03.2009 issued by the second respondent are set aside to the extent of engaging the petitioner as a fresh contract driver. As it is stated that the petitioner has already been reinstated into service, he shall be given the benefit of seniority in contract service and is entitled to all the benefits, which are extended to the similarly placed employees. It is made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry against him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th JUNE, 2010. kvni