HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4087 of 2011 Date: February 22, 2011 Between: O. Noor Basha … Petitioner And 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Region, Anantapur, & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4087 of 2011 ORDER: The writ petitioner has been appointed in the year 2006 as a Driver on contract basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). He seems to have been attending to the duties assigned by the Depot Manager at Guntakal, Anantapur District, ever since his appointment. But, however, he has absented for duty from 29.03.2008 to 04.4.2008. The writ petitioner asserts that when he has reported to duty, the second respondent - Depot Manager, Guntakal, has informed that his services were terminated. The writ petitioner’s services have been discontinued on the ground that he has willfully and unauthorisedly absented himself to duty from 29.03.2008. The writ petitioner appears to have filed a review before the first respondent - Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur Region, Anantapur, which was rejected as time barred. 2. Though several contentions have been urged, but, however, it is important to notice that the respondent Corporation itself has taken a policy decision and circulated the instructions to all the Depot Managers to conduct enquiry before terminating the services of contract Drivers. Before the services of a contract Driver, have been disengaged strictly in accordance with the terms of his engagement, on the plea that he has abstained himself unauthorizedly from duty, it becomes imperative that an enquiry should have preceded such an order. It will be appropriate to notice that no person should be condemned, unheard and without being providing an opportunity to put forth his defence. Viewed from this perspective of adherence to the principles of natural justice, the order passed by the Depot Manager, on 04-4- 2008, is clearly illegal. 3. If an opportunity is provided to the writ petitioner, he would have, perhaps, pointed out that in view of his sickness, he could not attend to his duties. Hence, the case of the writ petitioner deserves re-engagement. 4. It is, therefore, appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the second respondent Depot manager, to re-engage the writ petitioner as contract Driver. The writ petitioner shall not be entitled for any benefits for the period between 04-4-2008 and the date of re-engagement, except counting the service rendered by him between the date of joining duty in the year 2006 and 04.4.2008 for any benefit and he should be notionally treated to have continued in service. 5. For these reasons, the writ petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated supra. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: February 22, 2011. BSB