THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12893 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and as it is submitted by both the learned counsel that similar such matters were disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. In this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in September, 2006. In the Corporation, as per the practice in vogue, as and when vacancies arise, such candidates are being absorbed into regular service. On the ground that he was absent to duties from 30.07.2007, the third respondent – Depot Manager, Tadipatri, Anantapur District, terminated his services vide order, dated 27.08.2007. As against the said order, he filed a representation before the second respondent – Regional Manager, Anantapur, who in turn, rejected the same vide his order, dated 25.09.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that though his services were terminated on the ground of absenteeism, no enquiry is conducted and no notice is issued to him before passing the order, dated 27.08.2007 by the third respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation itself has issued instructions vide Circular bearing No.PD 5/2010, dated 23.02.2010, according to which, before terminating the services of the contract employees, regular enquiry must be conducted into the allegations levelled against them. Therefore, the orders, dated 27.08.2007 and 25.09.2008 passed by the third and second respondents respectively, are in violation of the instructions issued by the Corporation in the said Circular apart from the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that similar such matters were disposed of by this Court keeping it open to the respondents to conduct regular enquiry as per law. I have perused the copies of the termination order passed by the third respondent and the order of the second respondent. Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, the order, dated 27.08.2007 is not a termination simplicitor. In terms of the contractual obligations, when an allegation is levelled against the petitioner that he remained absent to duties from 30.07.2007, 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 levelled against the petitioner and give him an opportunity. In similar circumstances, this Court vide its order, dated 23.03.2009 in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, 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. For the aforesaid reasons and following the order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the writ petition is allowed and the orders, dated 27.08.2007 and 25.09.2008 passed by the third and second respondents respectively are hereby set aside. There shall be a 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. 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. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th JUNE, 2010. kvni