IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5998 of 2009 Between: K.V.Ratnam S/o.Madhusudhana Rao APSRTC Tanuku Depot, R/o.Eluru, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep.by its Managing Director Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC,West Godavari Region at Eluru 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tanuku, West Godavari District ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in terminating the petitioner’s services without holding enquiry as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was appointed as a driver on contract basis in Tanuku Depot. On the alleged ground that he absented from duty unauthorisedly from 21-06-2008, his services were terminated vide order dated 05-07-2008 passed by respondent No.3. Appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by respondent No.2 vide his order dated 30-09-2008, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the termination of the petitioner’s services on the alleged ground of unauthorized absence without holding enquiry is illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate order stigmatized the petitioner by attributing waylaying and robbery to him as a reason for his unauthorized absence. The learned counsel placed reliance on Circular No.PD-05/2009 dated 23-02-2009 issued by the Vice- Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.1-Corporation. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that as the petitioner was a temporary driver and no stigma was attached, termination of his services for unauthorized absence cannot be termed as illegal. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. As noted above, the ground of termination of the petitioner’s services was unauthorized absenteeism from 21-06-2008. The very allegation of unauthorized absence itself casts stigma to the workman. In addition to that the appellate authority categorically held that the petitioner was arrested and sent to remand in connection with the criminal case of waylaying and committing robbery. Admittedly, no enquiry was held and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the allegation of unauthorized absence. The Circular referred to above reads as under- “Instances have come to notice that the contract crew whose contract is terminated due to their involvement in absenteeism, accident/C&T irregularity cases are approaching the Courts and the Courts are pronouncing judgments that whenever stigma, like involvement in accident, cash and ticket irregularities and other serious misconducts, is attached, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted and further action has to be taken.” Having issued the Circular providing for a detailed enquiry, there is no justification to terminate the petitioner’s services without holding such enquiry. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the respondents that his absence was due to proper reasons, his absence cannot be treated as unauthorized absence warranting his removal. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with liberty to the respondents to hold an enquiry. As a sequel to disposal to main petition, WPMP No.7842 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd March, 2009 vrn