THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30357 of 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioner filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For all the reasons stated above it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in not ordering re- engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat 1st respondent proceedings, dt.31.12.2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation and pass such other order or orders.” 2 The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a contract Driver on 18.06.2006 in the respondent Corporation through a regular selection process in Hyderabad City Region and at present he is working in Kushaiguda Bus Depot, Hyderabad. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was in service, he was terminated from service on 24.08.2010 on the allegation of absenteeism, without conducting proper enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent i.e. Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Secunderabad Division explaining that initially he could not attend the duty during the relevant period because he had to look after his aged father who was suffering from ill-health and thereafter he also fell sick. The first respondent having considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner for his absence, but, however, issued the proceedings dated 31.12.2010 ordering for his reengagement as contract driver on the ground that the petitioner has put in four years of service. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent, having considered the explanation offered by the petitioner for his absence from the duty, ought to have ordered for continuity of service in addition to the reengagement afresh as ordered in the impugned proceedings dated 31.12.2010. The learned counsel would further submit that the order passed by the second respondent reveals that the said order was passed on the ground that the petitioner was absent from duty unauthorisedly from 31.10.2009 to 01.02.2010 and the said order also reveals that the second respondent received a report from TI-II/Hakimpet depot on 01.02.2010 and based on the said report the second respondent issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on the very same day i.e. on 01.02.2010 and again on the same day enquiry officer’s proceedings and report were prepared and after three days i.e. 04.02.2010 a show cause notice was given which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 10.02.2010. Therefore, the sequence of the proceedings referred at reference Nos.1 to 5 in the order passed by the second respondent shows that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the Corporation had issued Circular No.PD-05/2009 dated 23.02.2009 with regard to the procedure to be followed before initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee working on contract basis. Clause 2 of the said Circular contemplates that on receipt of explanation to the charge sheet or after giving reasonable time to submit the explanation i.e. one week, a detailed enquiry shall be conducted as early as possible within three months duly following the principles of natural justice as in the case of the regular employee. It is further submitted that no minimum time of at least one week was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation because he was issued the show cause notice on 04.02.2010 and the same was served on the petitioner on 10.02.2010. The sequence of the proceedings referred to in the order passed by the second respondent have been issued in such a manner where the procedure contemplated under the Circular No. PD-05/2009 dated 23.02.2009 has not been followed properly. In such an event, the entire proceedings issued by the second respondent would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. However, aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent the petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent considered the same and set aside the order of termination passed by the second respondent and ordered for reengagement, but had not granted the benefit of continuity of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there was an occasion for this court to deal with the similar matter in W.P.No.7545 of 2011 dated 28.03.2011. 4 Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent – Corporation. 5 In W.P.No.7545 of 2011 the prayer of the petitioner therein was to declare that the action of the respondent No.1 therein in not ordering re- engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor is bad, arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents therein to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings dated 17.06.2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation. In the said case, the petitioner was terminated form service by proceedings dated 24.05.2010 and on perusal of the termination order impugned in the said Writ Petition this court held that the proceedings show that the procedure was followed more in haste and the same amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. The order passed in the said Writ Petition also reveals that the said order was passed following the observations made in W.P.No.8090 of 2010 dated 12.04.2010 and ultimately it was held as under: “Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit.” 6 In the instant case the only difference is that the petitioner herein is a driver whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7545 of 2011 was Conductor. But the facts are similar in both the cases. 7 Therefore, following the order dated 28.03.2011 passed in W.P.No.7545 of 2011, this Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit. No costs. ----------------------- G. CHANDRAIAH, J. 16.11.2011 Kvsn