IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27354 OF 2009 Between: S.K.Zameer Ahamed ..... PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, Tourism House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27354 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “To issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents disengaging the petitioner by proceedings Rc.No.APTDC/Admn/P2/9/2008, dt.20.05.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract and violative to the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and also violative to the I.D.Act, 947 and the provisions of Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits including back wages as per law.” Heard both sides. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on contract basis. His services were terminated under the impugned proceedings without conducting any enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned termination without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to represent the allegations upon which the order of termination was passed is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also brought to my notice that in identical circumstances this Court allowed W.P.No.5998 of 2009 by order dated 23.03.2009 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner therein. The learned Counsel for the Corporation has not disputed the fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated and that the petitioner’s services were terminated attaching a stigma. In the circumstances, the impugned termination without conducting an enquiry cannot be sustained. Accordingly, following the order in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, dated 23.03.2009, the impugned order is set aside leaving it open to the respondents to hold enquiry and pass appropriate orders afresh if they so choose. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 04.02.2010 Ivd