IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7100 of 2008 Between: B. V. Ramaiah S/o. Ramanaiah R/o. Podili, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC rep. by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kanigiri Depot, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or directions more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring Office Order No. 02/95(63)/07-KNG dated 02.04.2007 and proceedings No. PA/675(82) 2007-RM-(O) dt. 30.07.2007 issued by 3rd and 2nd respondents herein in terminating the petitioner from service without following the principles of natural justice as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and further direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into the service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and full back wages. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis on 05.04.2006. He was entrusted with the duty of operating the one man service between Kanigiri and Vijayawada. On 24.03.2007, a check was conducted on the way and certain cash and ticket irregularities were noticed. Vide proceedings, dated 02.04.2007, the Depot Manager, Kanigiri, the third respondent, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a representation before the second respondent i.e. the Regional Manager, Prakasam Region, Ongole. The representation was also rejected vide order, dated 30.07.2007. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. It may be true that the petitioner is only a casual employee. Still, the respondents were under obligation to conduct departmental enquiry, in case the dismissal was on disciplinary grounds. This Court took the same view in the order, dated 01.08.2001, in W.P.No.8685 of 2001. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 02.04.2007, passed by the third respondent is set aside. It is, however, left open to him to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 03.04.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}