THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.19485 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings No.P3/684(1)/2000-ATP dated 3.7.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent – Depot Manager, Anantapur in terminating the services of the petitioner, who was working as driver in the respondent – Corporation, on the ground of possessing invalid licence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent – Corporation on 1.8.1992. On 29.1.2002, the petitioner was issued charge sheet alleging that the driving licence possessed by him is not genuine. Petitioner submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with the same, domestic enquiry was conducted and eventually he was removed from service by passing the impugned order. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he obtained licence in Mumba during the year 1985. The Corporation had issued circular No.PD-43/2000 dated 11.8.2000 instructing all the drivers to produce new licence, if their old licences are found to be non-genuine. In pursuance of the circular, the petitioner made application to the Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool and in accordance with procedure and due to the administrative reasons, he could obtain licence on 23.3.2002 and submitted the same on 25.3.2002. The case of the petitioner is that after submission of his licence, he was allowed to perform duty up to 2.4.2002 for 9 days and thereafter, he was asked not to come to duty and eventually after domestic enquiry, he was removed from service. Hence the writ petition. 5. No counter affidavit is filed. 6. From the material on record, it could be seen that the impugned order of termination was passed on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the new licence by 30.11.2001, which the time stipulated under the circular. The petitioner was appointed during the year of 1992 and before he was terminated, he rendered about ten years of service and his case is that he was possessing a valid licence issued by the Transport Authorities at Mumbai and further he obtained a valid licence on 23.3.2002, which he submitted on 25.3.2002 and thereafter, he was allowed to work from 25.3.2002 to 2.4.2009 for about nine days and thereafter, he was disengaged. The Corporation also issued circular dated 11.8.2000 giving opportunity to all the Drivers to produce new driving licence, if their driving licences were not genuine. The petitioner could not submit the new licnece within the stipulated time and the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has narrated the ailments suffered by him and the reasons for delay in issuing his licence by the Regional Transport Authority. Further, as noticed above, after he submitted his new licence, his case is that he was allowed to work for a period of nine days. The averments of the petitioner were not denied by the Corporation by filing any counter affidavit and these aspects were also not considered in proper perspective in the impugned order. 7. Further, this court while admitting the writ petition on 4.10.2002, suspending the impugned order and directed the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as driver and it is submitted that consequent upon the interim order, the petitioner was permitted to discharge his duties as driver and now he is working as driver. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any justification in terminating the services of the petitioner as driver. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and in view of the interim orders, no further order needs to be passed and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- 13—06—2011