HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8919 of 2010 Dated: 20-04-2010 Between: M. Sampath. … Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8919 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of termination, dated 10.06.2008, as confirmed by the appellate/review authority by an order, dated 04.11.2008. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, on 05.02.2007, in the service of the respondent- Corporation. Though the appointment was on contract basis, it is not in dispute that such appointment was made after following the regular selection procedure. As per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, at first instance, orders are issued on contract basis, but as and when the vacancies arise, such personnel appointed on contract basis, are absorbed into regular service. When the petitioner was serving as a Contract Driver, his services were dispensed with by an order, dated 10.06.2008, issued in Proceedings No.E3/255(06)/2008-GDK, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absented from 28.05.2008 to 10.06.2008. Though the petitioner has preferred review as per the Regulations, before the Divisional Manager, but the same is also ended in dismissal, mainly on the ground that his services were also terminated at an earlier point of time. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that his services are terminated without assigning any valid reason and that he was not absented unauthorisedly, but his absence was due to the sickness he has suffered during the relevant point of time. It is the case of the petitioner that as he was selected as a Contract worker after following due procedure for selection, his services cannot be terminated without conducting inquiry and without giving notice to him. It is submitted that though he has filed the review petition, the reviewing authority did not consider the same in proper perspective and dismissed the same merely referring to the earlier proceedings. The learned counsel has relied on an earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13075 of 2009, dated 17th of September 2009, wherein, this Court disapproved the action of respondents in dismissing the services of the employees appointed on contract basis, without conducting inquiry and without issuing any prior notice. I have perused the copies of the orders passed by the primary authority and also the review authority. A perusal of the said orders indicate that no inquiry is conducted before passing the order of termination. Though the petitioner is appointed on contract basis, the impugned order is not termination simpliciter, but it is termination on the ground of alleged misconduct, which should not have been passed without giving prior notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Even the review authority has not considered the said aspect and simply rejected the review petition. Further, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner also supports the case of the petitioner, as much as in similar identical matters, this Court has set aside the termination orders with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the employees into service. For the aforesaid reasons, as much as the impugned order of termination is not preceded by any inquiry and notice to the petitioner, the order of the primary authority, dated 10.06.2008, and the order of the review authority, dated 04.11.2008, are hereby set aside with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is needless to mention that on reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, which are extended to the similarly placed employees, who are appointed on contract basis, along with the petitioner. 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 orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed, to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th April 2010 ajr