HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9936 of 2010 Dated: 28-04-2010 Between: D. Yadaiah. … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9936 of 2010 ORDER: As it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that similar matters were already disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is also disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer : “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in not ordering re- engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor, is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent proceedings, dated 25.09.2008 as re- engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including regularisation.” 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis, in 2006, in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). It is stated that though the appointments are made initially on contract basis, but such appointments are made after following the due procedure prescribed for selection of regular candidates, and as per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the persons employed on contract basis will be absorbed into regular service, as and when the vacancies arise. 4. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from his duties from 29.12.2007 onwards, his services were terminated by an order, dated 15.04.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.P2/1(01)/2008-RJNR. As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad, who has rejected the same, and then he filed a review before the Regional Manager. The Regional Manager, by orders, dated 25.09.2009, passed in Proceedings No.PA/20 (280)/2009-HR, while setting aside the order of termination, has ordered for engagement of petitioner as a fresh Conductor. It is submitted that pursuant to such directions, he is already reinstated into service. 5. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as no inquiry was conducted by the primary authority though serious misconduct was alleged, the Regional Manager ought to have allowed the appeal. It is submitted that as the regular procedure is followed for selections and having regard to the nature of misconduct alleged, it is not open for the respondents to terminate the services of petitioner without conducting any inquiry and without giving opportunity to him. It is submitted that, there is no reason for issuing directions by the Regional Manager to treat the petitioner as a fresh Conductor. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of this Court, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. 6. I have also perused the order of the primary authority. Although the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, but it is not a termination simplicitor. When the termination is on the ground of alleged misconduct, respondents ought to have conducted inquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner, in the absence of which, it is not permissible to terminate his services on the alleged misconduct. In that view of the matter, there is no reason or justification in treating the petitioner as a fresh Conductor, as ordered by the Regional Manager, in his orders, dated 25.09.2009. This Court, by an order, dated 23rd March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, held that to terminate the services of even a contract employee on the allegation of misconduct, an inquiry is to be conducted, after issuing notice. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no such inquiry is conducted according to the Regulations, by giving opportunity to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, and in view of the order, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the proceedings, dated 15.04.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.P2/1(01)/2008-RJNR, and the order passed by the Regional Manager, dated 25.09.2009, passed in Proceedings No.PA/20 (280)/2009-HR, are set aside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Conductor on contract basis. It is made clear that on such reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Conductors, appointed along with him. It is also made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th April 2010 ajr