IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURALBE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WP. No.17942 of 2010 Between: S.K.Khudus … Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURALBE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WP. No.17942 of 2010 ORDER: Questioning the action of the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager, Prakasam District, in terminating the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry and by attaching stigma vide Proceedings No.01/1(13)/2008-GDLR, dated 25.03.2008, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent, Regional Manager, vide Proceedings No.PA/675(157)/2008-RM(O), dated 25.11.2008, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was given appointment as Driver on contract basis in the month of April, 2005. While working under the control of the 3rd respondent, he was issued proceedings dated 25.03.2008, terminating the services of the petitioner, on the ground of unauthorized absent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent also confirmed the proceedings dated 25.03.2008 vide proceedings date 25.11.2008. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to ill-health of the petitioner he could not attend the duty from 12.03.2008 to 25.03.2008 and the same has been informed to the respondents in his explanation. But without taking into consideration, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry into the matter. He further submitted that the Corporation itself has issued instructions vide Circular bearing No.PD 5/2010, dated 25.02.2010, according to which, before terminating the services of the contract employees, regular enquiry must be conducted into the allegations leveled against them. Therefore, the impugned proceedings 25.03.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent, which was confirmed by proceedings dated 25.11.2008 by the 2nd respondent are in violation of the instructions issued by the Corporation in the said Circular apart from the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed a reliance on the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P. No.8846 of 2010 and a copy of the same has been filed along with the material papers in the writ petition and submits that in similar circumstances this Court disposed of the petitions directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners into service. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that admittedly the petitioner is a contractual Driver working under the control of the 3rd respondent. As the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from his duties from 12.03.2008 to 25.03.2008 he was terminated from the services. As per the agreement, if the appointee is absent from duty for more than three days continuously or more than three occasions in a month, without any reason or without prior intimation, the agreement of contract would stands terminated. As the petitioner was absent without any prior intimation to the respondent authorities for more than three days i.e. 14 days, the petitioner was terminated from the services, in accordance with the agreement. Though the petitioner stated to have submitted representation to the respondent authorities explaining the reasons for his absence, the same was not satisfactory to the respondent authorities. Therefore, the petitioner was terminated from the services. However, the learned standing counsel does not dispute the fact that this Court had disposed of the similar batch of cases. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was terminated from the service without issuing any prior notice and without conducting any enquiry. It is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that vide Circular dated 23.02.2010 before terminating the services of the contract employees, regular enquiry must be conducted into the allegations leveled against them. Moreover, it is submitted that this Court disposed of the similar batch of cases and the same has not been disputed by the learned standing counsel. From a perusal of the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P. No.8846 of 2010 passed by this Court, in similar circumstances set aside the order of termination keeping it open to the respondents to conduct enquiry, if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. In terms of the contractual obligations, when an allegation is leveled against the petitioner, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry by giving an opportunity of personal hearing. When the allegation casts stigma on the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the respondents to conduct enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner and give him an opportunity. Though it is stated that the petitioner stated to have given his explanation denying the allegations leveled against him, there is no reference in the proceedings dated 25.03.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and following the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P. No.8846 of 2010, impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2008 of the 3rd respondent that was confirmed vide proceedings dated 25.11.2208 by the 2nd respondent are hereby set aside. There shall be direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, which are extended to the similarly placed employees. However, it is made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry against him and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 17.03.2011 LSK