THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23313 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as General Helper Grade II, on contract basis, initially in the year 2001. It was being extended from year to year. Petitioner states that the officials of the 1st respondent- Corporation, who are responsible for the misappropriation and irregularities, have reported that she has been unauthorisedly absent from 13.10.2007. Basing on the said representation, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order, dated 21/22.01.2008, terminating the services of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the impugned order was not preceded by any enquiry, much less any notice. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a General Helper Grade II, in the year 2001. The appointment is contractual in nature and was being extended from year to year. Assuming that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent, the respondents were under obligation to issue a notice, before terminating her services. Though the respondents may not be under obligation to conduct domestic enquiry, the minimum expected of them before terminating the services of an employee was to issue a notice. It is a different matter as to whether there exists any plausible explanation for the petitioner for her unauthorized absence. On the short ground that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice, it deserves to be set aside. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the respondents to take further steps in accordance with law. However, before that, they shall reinstate the petitioner into service, but without back wages. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06.09.2011. GJ