IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4758 of 2010 DATE:04.03.2010 Between: G.S. Manyam ….. Petitioner AND The A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others ….. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4758 of 2010 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order, dated 07.11.2007, issued in proceedings No.E1/1(27)/07-NSP by the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Narsapuram Depot-3rd respondent, terminating the petitioner from service, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty for five days i.e. from 03.11.2007 to 07.11.2007, as confirmed by the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., West Godavari Region, Eluru-2nd respondent, by an order, dated 12.05.2008, issued in proceedings No.PA/675(24)-RM/WG. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On the alleged ground that he was absent from duty unauthorisedly from 03.11.2007 to 07.11.2007, he was terminated from service, by an order, dated 07.11.2007, passed by the 3rd respondent. As against the said order, on 18.02.2008 the petitioner has filed a review petition before the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., West Godavari Region, Eluru-2nd respondent, who rejected the same as time barred, by an order, dated 12.05.2008, issued in proceedings No.PA/675(24)-RM/WG. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the reasons for his absence, and also without conducting any enquiry. It is further submitted that this writ petition is covered to be disposed of, in terms of an order, dated 23.03.2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. Even the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly conceded that a case of this nature was allowed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, by an order, dated 23.03.2009. 4. I have also perused the order, dated 23.03.2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. In the said writ petition also, when the order of termination of a contract employee was passed on the ground of unauthorized absence, a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that the very allegation of unauthorized absence, itself casts stigma on the workman. Admittedly, no enquiry was held and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner herein to rebut the allegation of unauthorized absence. In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the respondents herein for terminating the petitioner from service without conducting any enquiry. 5. Following the order, dated 23.03.2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the impugned orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to hold an enquiry into the allegation leveled against the petitioner, in accordance with Rules. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th March, 2010 CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4758 of 2010 4th March, 2010 CBS