HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8686 of 2010 Dated: 19-04-2010 Between: K. Praveenkumar. … Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8686 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, in the month of April 2005. It is not in dispute that all such appointments are made after following the due procedure for selections. As per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the persons, who were appointed on contract basis initially, are being absorbed into regular service as and when the vacancies arise. By the impugned order, dated 9th September 2008, petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground that he unauthorisedly absented from his duties for the period from 23rd of August 2008 to 9th September 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without conducting any inquiry and without giving any notice to him, and by recording a finding against him, which causes stigma on his service. It is submitted that circular instructions were issued by the Corporation itself, to follow regular procedure even for termination of the services of contract employees. But, inspite of the same, no opportunity is given to the petitioner before passing the order of termination. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court has allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also fairly concedes that similar such matters are allowed by this Court. As much as no inquiry is conducted before passing the order of termination, and in view of the judgment of this Court, dated 23rd of March 2009, in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the impugned order of termination, dated 9th September 2008, passed in Proceedings No.P1/684(1)/2008-VKB, is hereby set aside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits of the contract appointment, which are extended to the similarly placed persons. 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. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th April 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (b/o) ajr