HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10114 of 2010 Dated: 29-04-2010 Between: G. Saidulu. … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10114 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 in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing No.PA/20(63)/2009-HR, dated 03.06.2009 in ordering fresh re- engagement of the petitioner as Conductor, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the termination and rejection orders of the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively are contrary to the circulars issued by the Corporation and also against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services by treating the re-engagement orders of the 1st respondent with continuity of service, with all consequential service benefits.” 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis, in 2008, 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 18.07.2008 to 31.07.2008, his services were terminated by an order, dated 01.08.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.E1/1(46)/2008-FM. As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, who has rejected the same, by an order, dated 04.12.2008, passed in Proceedings No.PA/19(C-65)/2008-DVM/CR. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a review before the Regional Manager, Hyderabad region. The Regional Manager, by orders, dated 03.06.2009, passed in Proceedings No.PA/20 (63)/2009-HR, while setting aside the order of termination, has ordered for re-engagement of petitioner as a Conductor on contract basis. 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 candidate. 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 termination order. It is not the order of termination simplicitor, but the termination is on the ground of alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence, in which event, respondents ought to have conducted inquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner, before passing the said order. In that view of the matter, there is no reason or justification in treating the petitioner as a fresh candidate, as ordered by the Regional Manager, in his orders, dated 03.06.2009. 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 01.08.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.E1/1046/2008-FM, the order of the 2nd respondent- Divisional Manager in Proceedings No.PA/19(C-65)/2008- DVM/CR, dated 04.12.2008, and the further orders of review, dated 03.06.2009, passed by the 1st respondent- Regional Manager in Proceedings No.PA/20(63)/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 29th April 2010 ajr