HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1112 of 2011 Date: January 31, 2011 Between: M. Anil Kumar. … Petitioner And 1. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Anantapur Region, Anantapur & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1112 of 2011 ORDER: It is represented that the writ petitioner, whose services have been contracted as a driver, has been disengaged by way of termination of the contract through the orders passed on 17.7.2007 by the Depot Manager on the ground that he was continuously absent for duty from 01.6.2007 onwards. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has suffered a head injury and because of the injury he was receiving treatment and hence he could not attend to the duties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if only the petitioner has been granted a week’s time before the Depot Manager terminated his contract of employment, he would have produced the necessary material justifying his absence. Since no opportunity, whatsoever, has been accorded to him, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, as it has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. This apart, the Corporation also has announced its policy decision not to terminate the contract of employment of drivers or conductors without conducting an enquiry. The impugned order clearly cast a stigma. Therefore, it is fundamental that the writ petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing so that he could have successfully explained the circumstances that were set against him causing his absence from duty. Then the respondents could have applied their mind as to genuineness of the claim made by the writ petitioner and accordingly regulate his further continuance or otherwise in service. It is also pointed out that in a good number of cases this Court directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry before terminating the contract of employment. The learned standing counsel for the APSRTC does not controvert this statement. It is therefore appropriate that the order passed on 17th July 2007 by the second respondent Depot Manager terminating the contract of employment of the writ petitioner as a driver is set aside for its sheer failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice. The writ petitioner may be re- engaged into service on the same terms, subject to which he was engaged as at the time on 17.7.2007. The petitioner is solely responsible for the delay in approaching this Court. Therefore, his own laches cannot be converted into an advantage for himself. Hence, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit for the period beyond 01.6.2007, the date from which he abstained continuously to duty. But however, the service, if any, rendered by the writ petitioner prior to 1.6.2007 may be given credit for the period of regulating benefits such as reckoning the requisite length of service for regularization and terminal benefits. Other than these benefits, the petitioner is not entitled for any other benefit. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of. Thirty days time is granted for reviving the contract of employment of the writ petitioner. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: January 31, 2011. BSB