HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.32659 of 2011 Dated 14-12-2011 Between: R.Lakshma Reddy. …Petitioner. And: The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar Region, at Mahaboobnagar, Andhra Pradesh and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.32659 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in terminating the petitioner as contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable, disproportionate and against to the principles of natural justice and against to the corporation circulars by setting aside the office order dated 14-6-2007 of the 2nd respondent and consequential orders and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits such as regularization etc., The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He was appointed as Contract Driver through a regular selection process in Mahaboobnagar Region in the respondent corporation. Since then he has been working with utmost satisfaction to the superiors. While he was performing his duty in the respondent- Corporation, he was terminated from service by office order dated 14-6-2007 on the charge of absenteeism. Subsequent to that, he filed an appeal to the Regional Manager-1st respondent. But the same was rejected on 26-2-2009. In view of his ill-health, he could not attend for duties, and hence, his alleged absence was not willful. Before imposing punishment of his termination, there was no charge sheet and no domestic enquiry was conducted. Such termination was declared as bad and illegal in many cases by this Court. Even the Corporation itself issued a Circular No.PD-05/2009, dated 23-2-2009 stating that enquiry is mandatory before termination of contract conductor/driver also. Because of his termination from service, his entire family was thrown into starvation and his present job is only the source of income to his family. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that due to his ill-health only, he could not attend for his duties and hence, his absence was not willful. Apart from that, before imposing punishment of his termination, there was no charge sheet and no domestic enquiry was conducted and hence, the action of the respondent- authorities is bad and illegal. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner is squarely covered by an unreported order of this Court in Writ Petition in W.P.No.26012 of 2011. The said writ petition in W.P.No.26012 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner therein for issuance of writ of mandamus with the following prayer: “to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in terminating the petitioner as contract Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable, disproportionate and against to the principles of natural justice and against to the corporation circulars by setting aside the office order dated 21-7-2008 of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits such as regularization etc.,” By order dated 16-09-2011, this Court allowed the said writ petition observing as under: “The services of the petitioner, no doubt, are contractual in nature. However, even for that category of employees, the Regulations framed by the Corporation are applicable and the order of termination can be passed only after issuing notice and after conducting enquiry. Admittedly, in the instant case, no notice was issued to the petitioner, much less enquiry was conducted. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the petitioner had approached this Court belatedly, she shall not be entitled to count any past service and respondent No.2 shall reinstate her into service as a fresh candidate. There shall be no order as to costs”. There is no dispute that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the above order of this Court. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and consequently, the order impugned is set aside and the respondent-authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to count any past service. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 14-12-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.32659 of 2011 Dated 14-12-2011