HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5429 of 2010 Dated: 10-03-2010 Between: A.R.R.M. Rao. … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tanuku Bus Depot, West Godavari District & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5429 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao, and Sri K.Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in terminating the services of petitioner as contract Driver, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to set aside the order, dated 9th January 2008, passed by the 1st respondent-Depot Manager in Proceedings No.P1/1(171)/07-TNK. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a contract Driver, after following the regular procedure for selections and is posted as a Driver in APSRTC, Tanuku Depot. On the ground that he un-authorisedly absented from duties, his services are terminated by the impugned order. The said order is questioned mainly on the ground that it was not preceded by any inquiry and opportunity to the petitioner to show cause the reasons for his absence. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegation of unauthorized absence causes stigma on the service of petitioner, as such, unless an inquiry is conducted by giving opportunity to the petitioner, no order terminating his services, could have been passed. Petitioner has also relied on the circular instructions issued by the Corporation itself, on 23rd February 2009, in Circular No.PD-05/2009, wherein, the Corporation has issued instructions and the procedure to be followed while initiating disciplinary action against the employees engaged on contract basis. 4. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in similar matters, where the orders of termination are passed without inquiry and notice, this Court has allowed the writ petitions, and the same is also not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. The allegation of unauthorized absence will cause a stigma on the service of an individual, and therefore, no findings shall be recorded on such allegation, without giving an opportunity to him. As much as it is not in dispute that no inquiry is conducted and no opportunity is given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of termination, and further, taking into account the circular instructions issued by the Corporation itself on 23rd February 2009, in Circular No.PD-05/2009, the order of termination, dated 09.01.2008, passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.P1/1(171)/07-TNK, is set aside. The Depot Manager, Tanuku, is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service on same terms and conditions of his appointment. It is also made clear that if there are any allegations/misconduct on the part of the petitioner, it is open for the respondents to take steps for disciplinary action in accordance with the circular instructions, dated 23rd February 2009, issued in Circular No.PD-05/2009, or any other instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time. 5. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th March 2010 ajr