HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10194 of 2010 Dated: 29-04-2010 Between: Korivi Shiva Lingam. … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10194 of 2010 ORDER: As it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents that similar matters were already disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is also disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer : “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 20.03.2009 vide proceedings No.PA/20(19)/2008-RM/MR issued by the 2nd respondent herein to the extent the same denies the petitioner the benefit of reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and provisions of I.D.Act, 1947 and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, grant costs of the proceedings.” 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis, on 15.02.2007, 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. 4. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duties, from 29.05.2008 to 05.06.2008 and from 09.07.2008 to 02.08.2008, his services were terminated by an order, dated 11.08.2008, passed by the 4th respondent in Proceedings No.P2/1(24)/2008-GPP. As against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager. The Regional Manager, by an order, dated 20th March 2009, passed in proceedings No.PA/20(19)/2008-RM:MR, has set aside the order of termination, but directed to re-engage the petitioner as a Conductor on contract basis, and also ordered for forfeiting the security deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. 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 in any event, the appellate authority, while setting aside the order of termination, has erroneously ordered for re-engagement of petitioner as a fresh Conductor on contract basis, due to which, he is losing his seniority in the contract service for the purpose of absorption into regular service in the Corporation. 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, the appellate authority ought to have allowed the appeal as prayed for. 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. 6. 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. Even the appellate authority has not considered the appeal in proper perspective and has ordered for re-engagement of petitioner as a fresh Conductor on contract basis. In the same circumstances, this Court has already allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of termination, dated 11.08.2008, passed by the 4th respondent in Proceedings No.P2/1(24)/2008-GPP, and the order, dated 20th March 2009, passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.PA/20(19)/2008-RM:MR, are set aside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Conductor on contract basis. It is made clear that on such reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Conductors, 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. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th April 2010 ajr