THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.32789 OF 2010 ORDER: The writ petitioner has been appointed on 07-05-2007 as a Driver on contract basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). He seems to have been attending to the duties assigned by the Depot Manager at Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District, ever since 07-05-2007. But, however, he has taken ill on 28-11-2007 and he has been treated at the Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar District till 05-12-2007. The writ petitioner asserts that when he has reported to duty on 06-12-2007, the 3rd respondent - Depot Manager, Kalwakurthy, has handed down the Office Order dated 02-12-2007. The writ petitioner’s services have been discontinued on the ground that he has willfully and unauthorisedly absented himself to duty from 28-11- 2007. The writ petitioner appears to have submitted a representation-cum-Appeal to the 2nd respondent - Regional Manager, Mahaboobnagar, on 01-09-2007, which has not been taken up for consideration by the 2nd respondent so far. Though several contentions have been urged, but, however, it is important to notice that the respondent Corporation itself has taken a policy decision and circulated the instructions to all the Depot Managers to conduct inquiry before terminating the services of contract Drivers. Before the services of a contract Driver, have been disengaged strictly in accordance with the terms of his engagement, on the plea that he has abstained himself unauthorizedly from duty, it becomes imperative that an inquiry should have preceded such an Order. It will be appropriate to notice that no person should be condemned, unheard and without being providing an opportunity to put forth his defence. Viewed from this perspective of adherence to the principles of natural justice, the Order passed by the Depot Manager, on 02-12-2007, is clearly illegal. In the instant case, it is stated that the writ petitioner has been treated at the Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar, which is a Government Hospital and it is approved by the Corporation itself for their employees to receive treatment there. Therefore, if an opportunity is provided to the writ petitioner, he would have, perhaps, pointed out that in view of his sickness, he could not attend to his duties. Hence, the case of the writ petitioner deserves re- engagement. It is, therefore, appropriate to set aside the impugned Order and direct the 3rd respondent Depot manager, to re-engage the writ petitioner as contract Driver. The writ petitioner shall not be entitled for any benefits for the period between 02-12-2007 to the date of re-engagement, except counting the service rendered by him between 07-05-2007 to 02-12-2007 for any benefit and he should be notionally treated to have continued in service. For these reasons, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated supra. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 27th December 2010