THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.25203 OF 2010 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the proceedings No.P1/1/(21)2009-DMM, dated 30-05-2009 of 3rd respondent and the proceedings No.PA/19(66)2010-Dy.CTM-A, dated 21-04-2010 of 2nd respondent and the proceedings No.PA/675(71)/2010-RM (A), dated 16-07-2010 of 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as Driver in the Corporation by extending all benefits on par with similarly placed drivers. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Driver on contract basis in the month of June, 2008 by a duly constituted selection committee and posted to 3rd respondent depot. While he was working in 3rd respondent depot, he was absented for duties from 19-1- 2009 to 21-09-2009 and 12-01-2009 to 18-1-2009 and 19-2-2009 to 28-4-2009 due to ill- health. The petitioner sent sick intimation to the on duty controller. In spite of the same, he was served with notice dated 22-1-2009 by framing charge, for which he submitted his explanation. Without considering the same, an enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer, instead of sending notice exhibited the call letter on 28-4-2009 in the notice board intimating the date of enquiry, and conducted ex parte enquiry. Thereafter, he submitted his report dated 28-4-2009 holding that the charge is proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, a show cause notice of termination of contract dated 12-05-2009 was served on the petitioner. The petitioner could not submit any explanation to the show cause notice as he was suffering from ill-health. Accordingly, on 30-05-2009 he was terminated from service. Hence, he filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and review before the 1st respondent, which were rejected vide proceedings dated 21-4-2010 and 16-07-2010 respectively. Hence, the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and he was terminated from service without any notice and the enquiry was conducted ex parte, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that under similar circumstances, this Court, in a batch of writ petitions, while setting aside the order of removal in case of contract drivers, who are removed on the ground of un-authorized absence, directed the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner therein into service observing that the order passed in the writ petition does not come in the way of the respondent-authorities to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order rendered by this Court in WP No.12893 of 2010 dated 09.06.2010. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was terminated on the ground of un-authorized absence. He further submits that the original authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority have constantly viewed that the termination is in accordance with law. But, he did not dispute the fact that in similar circumstances, this Court has set aside the order of termination in respect of the drivers, who were appointed on contract basis and removed from service on the ground of un-authorized absence and directed the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner therein into service. As can be seen from the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12893 of 2010, the petitioner therein, who was appointed as Driver on contract basis, was absented from duties from 30-07-2007, which resulted termination of order dated 27-08-2007. Questioning the same, he filed a representation before the second respondent therein, who in turn, rejected the same vide order dated 25-09-2008. Challenging the same, the petitioner therein filed writ petition. In the said writ petition, the Corporation issued instructions vide Circular bearing No.PD.5/2010, dated 23-2-2010, according to which, before terminating the services of the contract employees, regular enquiry must be conducted into the allegations leveled against the employees. Keeping in view of the said Circular instructions and basing on the order passed by this Court in WP No.5998 of 2009, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner therein into service. In the instant case, the petitioner was also appointed as Driver on contract basis and his services were terminated on the basis of unauthorized absence from duties. The case on hand is similar to that of the order referred to supra. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP No.12893 of 2010, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, which are extended to the similarly placed employees. It is made clear that the if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry against him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J rkk Dated: 23-3-2011