HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.10318 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant by the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation), the 3rd respondent herein, on 27-05-2002 for a period of two years on consolidated pay of Rs.1,800/- per month. Later on, the appointment was extended and the petitioner was posted to a Guest House at Nagarjuna Sagar. Through proceedings, dated 31-10- 2005, the Managing Director of the Corporation terminated the services of the petitioner on administrative grounds by giving one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner states that he submitted a representation to various authorities and since there is no response to the same, he has approached this Court, challenging the order of termination. 2. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that on receiving a complaint that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to a batch of Tourists, who travelled through a Launch, enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner also participated and on finding that the petitioner’s role was also there in the mis-appropriation, the impugned order is passed. 3. Heard Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri A.K. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The appointment of the petitioner was initially for a term of two years and thereafter it was extended. It is, no doubt, true that there is a condition in the order of appointment to the effect that the respondents are entitled to terminate the contract by issuing notice of one month or by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice. In case, the termination is simplicitor, different result would ensue. However, in the impugned order, it is stated that the termination is on administrative grounds. Added to that in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the service of the petitioner was terminated on the basis of enquiry. It means that the termination was a punitive measure. The record does not disclose that the petitioner was served with any show cause notice at any point of time. Further, there is no reference to such an enquiry in the impugned order. Since stigma is being attached to the petitioner, the respondents are under obligation to follow the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, no such notice was issued. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. Since the petitioner approached this Court at a belated stage, he shall not be entitled for any back-wages. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back- wages till the date of reinstatement. The 3rd respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of four (4) weeks from today into the minimum of pay scale attached to the employees of similar nature. In case, the 3rd respondent intends to conduct any enquiry against the petitioner, it shall be open to them to do so, after reinstating the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 19, 2011. KTL