THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12627 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who was formally working as a driver on contract basis in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation of its 2nd respondent depot, questioned the order of termination of his services, dated 03.05.2008 passed in proceedings No. 01/2 (10)/2008-CTR-I as confirmed by the Regional Manager by his order dated 28.11.2008 passed in proceedings No. PA/20(157)/2008-RM(T). The petitioner was appointed as a driver on contract basis in the 2nd respondent depot with effect from 23.11.2006 and he was given employee No. C 19018. It is the case of the petitioner that though appointment was given on contract basis, the respondents had followed the regular selection process as per the recruitment regulations. In the Corporation, as per the practice in vogue, as and when vacancies arise, such candidates are being absorbed into regular service. On 02.04.2008, while the petitioner was driving a bus bearing Registration No. AP 28Z 1644, on the route from Ananthapur to Chittoor, the bus met with an accident and as a result, a pedestrian sustained injuries. It is the case of the petitioner that though there was no negligence on his part, the respondents have passed the impugned order terminating his services without conducting an enquiry and without issuing any notice to him, by order dated 03.05.2008. As against the said order, the petitioner filed a representation/appeal before the Regional Manager, Tirupati, who rejected the said representation, by order dated 28.11.2008. The order of termination is questioned mainly on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without conducting any enquiry and issuing notice. It is submitted that inasmuch as the impugned order is not termination simplicitor, but termination on the allegation of negligence on the part of the petitioner, the respondents could not have terminated his services without conducting any enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that even the Regional Manager did not consider the representation/appeal in a proper perspective and rejected the same in a routine manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 8954 of 2010, a copy of which has also been annexed to the material papers filed along with the Writ Petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that this Court has already allowed similar Writ Petitions where order of termination was questioned on the ground that it was not preceded by any enquiry and ordered for reinstatement. I have perused the order of termination in this case. It is evident therefrom that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner at any point of time before issuing any order of termination. When termination order is attached with a stigma on the part of the petitioner, it is not permissible for the respondents to terminate his services without conducting an enquiry. I have also perused the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 8954 of 2010 which supports the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, in identical circumstances, this Court while setting aside the order of termination, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner therein into service. For the aforesaid reasons and also in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 8954 of 2010, the order of termination dated 03.05.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the Regional Manager vide order dated 28.11.2008, is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by extending the benefit of seniority from the date of his initial appointment. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits. Further, if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting the enquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated supra. No costs. ---------------------------- (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) 7th June 2010 ksld