HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13048 of 2010 Dated: 10-06-2010 Between: G. Someswaraiah. … Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13048 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari. The writ petition is filed, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent- Depot Manager in terminating the services of the petitioner vide proceedings No.P1/1(90)2007-Dhone, dated 30.08.2007, without conducting any inquiry, as arbitrary and contrary to the APSRTC Regulations, with a consequential direction to the respondents to extend to the petitioner, all the benefits of contract service on par with the persons appointed along with him. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, in the month of April 2006 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). It is stated that though the appointments are made initially on contract basis, but such appointments are made after following the due procedure prescribed for selection of regular candidates, and as per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the persons employed on contract basis will be absorbed into regular service, as and when the vacancies arise. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duties from 08.08.2007 to 30.09.2007, his services were terminated by an order, dated 30.08.2007, passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.P1/1(90)2007-Dhone. As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, but the appellate authority has failed to entertain the appeal by orally stating that there is no appeal provision. Hence, this writ petition. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as he was appointed after following regular procedure for selections, and as the termination was on the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence, respondents ought not to have terminated him from service without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any notice to him. It is submitted that even the appellate authority has failed to entertain the appeal by orally stating that there is no appeal provision. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as no inquiry is conducted by the primary authority on the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence, his services ought not to have been terminated. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of this Court, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. Even the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has fairly conceded that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. I have also perused the order of termination. From a perusal of the order, it is evident that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity before passing the order of termination. As much as the petitioner was appointed after following the regular process for selection, when his services are to be terminated, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to conduct inquiry before passing the order of termination. In the same circumstances, this Court has already allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of termination, dated 30.08.2007, passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.P1/1(90)/2007-Dhone, is set aside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Contract Driver, and to extend the benefit of seniority in contract service from the date of his initial appointment, subject to clearance by conducting necessary medical examination to enter into service. He is entitled to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Drivers, appointed along with him. It is also made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. At the same time, it is also made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefit towards arrears of salary. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th June 2010 ajr