THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6579 OF 2011 O R D E R: Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. The writ petitioner was engaged as a driver on contract basis in the month of March 2005 and he was attached to Rajahmundry depot under the control of the 2nd respondent Regional Manager. The Depot Manager passed orders on 04.07.2007 terminating the contract of engagement of the writ petitioner, thus brought about an end to his service as a contract driver with the APSRTC. The immediate provocation for passing such an order by the Depot Manager was the accident said to have been committed at about 17.30 hours on 06.06.2007 involving a bus of the Corporation, which was driven by the writ petitioner, which resulted in the death of a tender-aged individual. The explanation offered by the writ petitioner was that while he was negotiating to pass by a tractor, which was coming in the opposite direction, an eight-year-old boy suddenly seems to have attempted to cross the road and thus came in contact with the bus resulting in his death. The Depot Manager has clearly found fault with the writ petitioner for lack of anticipation on his part and hence, he held the writ petitioner responsible for causing the accident. When the writ petitioner filed a review petition before the 2nd respondent Regional Manager, he rejected the same on 21.07.2008. More than 2 ½ years later on, this Writ petition is instituted complaining that the respondents have not cared to follow the instructions issued by the Corporation requiring them to conduct an enquiry before passing any order of termination of service of contract drivers. While it is true that the Corporation itself has taken a policy decision not to terminate the service of contract drivers and conductors, without conducing any enquiry into the matter and providing a fair and reasonable opportunity for such employees to defend themselves, it would, however, be appropriate to notice that wherever a fatal accident occurs involving the buses belonging to the Corporation, a Joint Accident Committee is constituted by the Corporation for undertaking an enquiry into the causative factors of the accident. Based upon the findings only, the Depot Manager possibly could have arrived at the finding that the writ petitioner is responsible for causing the accident for want of proper anticipation on his part. Be that as it may, though the procedure prescribed under the APSRTC Employees’ (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Regulations per se may not be applicable to the cases of contract employees, but nonetheless, a fair and reasonable opportunity, as forming part of principles of natural justice, is to be provided. The writ petitioner ought to have been informed of the reason why the Depot Manager preferred to proceed against him and given a fair chance to counter the allegations or lead any material that can be in his favour and demonstrate that he is not guilty of the charge laid against him. Based upon the findings at that enquiry, the petitioner could have been proceeded against as a measure of punishment. It is elementary that principles of natural justice are the least that are required to be complied with before a punitive order is passed. It is no doubt true that if a fatal accident is caused involving the fleet of the Corporation, it will bring bad name to the Corporation apart from the liability to pay compensation for the victims or their dependants. Thus, a financial impact is also caused to the Corporation’s interests by such fatal accidents. Therefore, before a punitive order is passed by the Depot Manager, he ought to have conducted an enquiry. Since the writ petitioner has approached this Court more than 2 ½ years later on, it is only appropriate that the Depot Manager, Rajahmundry Depot be directed to conduct an enquiry into the matter and provide a fair and reasonable opportunity for the writ petitioner to bring-forth such material which will help him to discharge his obligation that he is not guilty of any misdemeanor on his part, which resulted in the accident. Based upon the findings, appropriate decision once again be taken as to whether the writ petitioner’s services as a contract driver need to be terminated or he needs to be provided an opportunity of being re-engaged. In the event the Depot Manager comes to the conclusion that the writ petitioner deserves an opportunity of being re-engaged, he may pass such an order as expeditiously as possible, after the enquiry is completed. However, the writ petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits, either monetary or otherwise for the period between 04.07.2007 and the ultimate date of re-engagement. He will not be entitled to count the said service even for his terminal benefits. However, he would only be entitled to count his past service rendered prior to 04.07.2007 for terminal benefits and for the purpose of regularization. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition stands disposed of without, for the present, setting aside the orders passed by the Depot Manager as well as the 2nd respondent Regional Manager, but however, they will abide by the result in the enquiry now ordered to be conducted. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 15th March 2011 ksld