THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25555 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Driver, on contract basis, by the respondents, with effect from 05.05.2005. On 20.08.2006, he was on duty to drive a bus, bearing AP 10Z 1789, on the route from Ramachandrapuram to Rajamundry. Through his proceedings, dated 25.09.2006, the Depot Manager, the 2nd respondent herein, terminated the contract of the petitioner, stating that he has stopped the service for one and half hour enroute, and thereby caused inconvenience to the passengers and loss to the Corporation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a review before the Regional Manager, Rajahmundry, the 1st respondent. The review was rejected, on 16.04.2007. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner states that, except that he has taken pity on an old woman, who was lying on the road with serious injuries, he has no other intention to stop the service, much less cause inconvenience to the passengers. He further contends that he took the old woman in the bus to nearby Government Hospital, on the insistence of passengers and that all of them were accommodated in another service. The respondents filed counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the service of the petitioner is purely contractual in nature and it was terminated in terms thereof. It is stated that there was absolutely no justification on the part of the petitioner in stopping the bus and causing inconvenience to quite large number of passengers. It is also stated that the petitioner did not report an incident of that magnitude, to the authorities. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he stopped the bus for 1½ hours enroute. Even from a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the reason for stoppage of service was to take an old woman, lying on the road side, to a Government Hospital. Even this is said to have been at the insistence of some of the passengers. The record discloses that the woman died about ten days thereafter. The fault on the part of the petitioner, if at all, is to take pity on a suffering old woman. It was not even alleged that he has resorted to any acts of insubordination or that any manetory loss was caused to the Corporation. Not a single passenger complained of any inconvenience. By the acts of humanity shown by the petitioner, the image of the Corporation in fact, gets enhanced. A vague and obscure statement is made to the effect that the names of employees of the A.P.S.R.T.C. were mentioned in the F.I.R. registered, after the death of the old woman. The fact remains that the petitioner admitted the woman in the hospital on 20.08.2006, whereas the death took place on 31.08.2006. The FIR was said to have been registered on that date. No mention is made about any proceedings that are said to have instituted against the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner is no doubt contractual. It however must not be forgotten that he discharges the same functions as any other regular driver and his appointment was after the process of selection. An employment of that nature cannot be brought to an end just at the whims of an employer. No enquiry was conducted nor any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was reinstated into service. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17.06.2010. GJ