THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2176 OF 2004 DATED 4TH FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN K.Rama Rao … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Charminar Division, Koti Bus Terminal, Sultanbazar, Koti. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2176 OF 2004 ORDER: The action of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘the APSRTC’) in deleting the name of the petitioner from the approved/selection list of casual Conductors under order dated 28.05.2003 is called in question. The petitioner was selected in pursuance of a notification and appointed as a Conductor in the Ibrahimpatnam Bus Depot, APSRTC, in December, 2001. While he was conducting the bus service on route No.216-U (Central University to Koti) on 21.04.2003, a check was made by the officials of the APSRTC and certain cash and ticket irregularities were allegedly detected. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice on 09.05.2003 in this regard and he submitted his explanation thereto. Without holding any further enquiry into the matter, the APSRTC issued the impugned proceedings on 28.05.2003 directing the deletion of the petitioner’s name from the approved/selection list of casual Conductors. The said action is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the APSRTC did not hold an enquiry into the matter before taking action against the petitioner. By interim order dated 06.02.2004, this Court directed the APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner and continue him in service pending the writ petition. Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the procedure adopted is illegal. The learned counsel stated that no proceeding or enquiry, worth the name, was held giving the petitioner due opportunity to defend himself, before the APSRTC came to a decision. He therefore argued that the action of the APSRTC in directing deletion of the petitioner’s name from the approved/selection list of casual Conductors was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, relied upon the counter affidavit filed by his client to support the action taken against the petitioner. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner being a daily wage worker was not an employee within the meaning of the Regulations of the APSRTC and accordingly, he would not be entitled to the benefit of such Regulations. This Court is however not inclined to accept the contention put forth by the learned standing counsel. Even a temporary employee is entitled to the protection of law and it is not open to the employer to adopt an arbitrary and capricious hire and fire policy. The petitioner in the present case stands on a better footing, having been duly selected in response to a notification. His name had already been included in the approved/selection list of casual Conductors, thereby vesting him with certain rights. In such a situation, it was not open to the APSRTC to dispense with his services by directing the deletion of his name from the said list without affording him an opportunity to defend himself in a properly constituted enquiry. The impugned proceedings dated 28.05.2003 directing the deletion of the petitioner’s name from the approved/selection list of casual Conductors is therefore found to be illegal and unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed but, in the circumstances of the case, without costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 4TH FEBRUARY, 2010. VGSR