HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6668 of 2010 Date : 25.03.2010 Between : N.Ashok. …..Petitioner And A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6668 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner was appointed to the service of the 1st respondent-Corporation, as a Driver, by following the regular procedure, but however, appointment order was issued on contract basis, in the year 2007. On the ground that he unauthorisedly absented from 13.07.2008 to 12.08.2008, his services were terminated, by the 3rd respondent-Depot Manager, by his orders dated 12.08.2008, issued in E1/1(39)2008-MNTY. As against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager, Karimnagar, and the said appellate authority also rejected the appeal by the impugned order, dated 12.09.2008, issued in Proceedings No.E2/852(50)2008.RM:KRMR. Hence, this writ petition, challenging the order of termination, as confirmed by the appellate authority. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the allegation of unauthorized absence, no termination order could have been passed without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any prior notice or giving opportunity to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that similar writ petitions were allowed by this Court and he has also placed before this Court, a copy of the order, dated 4th March 2010, passed in one of the writ petitions in W.P.No.27904 of 2009, which was allowed by this Court, in terms of the earlier orders, dated 23.03.2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, wherein, this Court has taken the view that as much as the allegation made against the petitioner casts stigma on his services, unless the petitioner is given opportunity, the respondents could not have passed the orders of termination, without conducting inquiry. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents also admits that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered to be disposed of in terms of the above said case. 3. I have also perused the copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27904 of 2009, dated 4th March 2010. Following the said order, the impugned order of termination, as confirmed by the appellate authority is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, it is made clear that respondents are at liberty to hold appropriate inquiry into the allegation levelled against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th March 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (b/o) ajr