IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25511 of 2008 Between: S.S. Narayana, C.65006, Driver, S/o. Venkanna, R/o. D.No. 8-16, S.C. Colony, Uppada, Kottapalli Mandal East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., East Godavari Region, At Rajahmundry. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry and at attaching Stigma vide Proc. No. M1 2(25)/2007-Kakinada, dated 31- 10-2007, which was confirmed by the review authority vide Proc. No. PA/20(44)2008-RM-EG, dated 29-4-2008 as high handed and arbitrary action, without jurisdiction, contrary to APSRTC Regulations against to the Principles of natural justice and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, who was appointed as driver on contract basis in the respondent-Corporation, filed this writ petition questioning the order of termination passed by the third respondent dated 31.10.2007, which was confirmed by the review authority vide order dated 29.04.2008, on the ground that the said termination order was passed without conducting any enquiry and was contrary to APSRTC Regulations. At the hearing, it is represented by Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by order, dated 23.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.5998 of 2009. In the said order, this Court held as under: “As noted above, the ground of termination of the petitioner’s services was unauthorized absenteeism from 21.06.2008. The very allegation of unauthorized absence itself casts stigma to the workman. In addition to that the appellate authority categorically held that the petitioner was arrested and sent to remand in connection with the criminal case of waylaying and committing robbery. Admittedly, no enquiry was held and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the allegation of unauthorised absence. The Circular referred to above reads as under: “Instances have come to notice that the contract crew whose contract is terminated due to their involvement in absenteeism, accident/C&T irregularity cases are approaching the Courts and the Courts are pronouncing judgments that whenever stigma, like involvement in accident, cash and ticket irregularities and other serious misconducts, is attached, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted and further action has to be taken.” Having issued the Circular providing for a detailed enquiry, there is no justification to terminate the petitioner’s services without holding such enquiry. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the respondents that his absence was due to proper reasons, his absence cannot be treated as unauthorized absence warranting his removal. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with liberty to the respondents to hold an enquiry.” Since the petitioner is similarly placed as that of the petitioner in the above-mentioned writ petition, and since it is his specific contention that the respondents without holding any enquiry as provided in the Circulars, terminated his services, following the judgment passed in the above-mentioned writ petition and for the reasons mentioned therein, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with liberty to the respondents to hold an enquiry. N.V.RAMANA, J Date: 25.06.2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/o. va