IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21690 of 2008 Between: P.V. Prasad S/o. Suryanarayana A.P.S.R.T.C., Ramachandrapuram Depot, R/o. Ramachandrapuram, E.G. Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry. 3 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Ramachandrapuram, E.G. Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry and by attaching Stigma vide Proc No.01/ 2(1)/ 08 - RCPM dated 02-04-2008, which was confirmed by the review authority vide Proc.No.PA / 20 (52) /2008 - RM - EG, dated 19-05-2008 as high handed and arbitrary action, without jurisdiction, contrary to APSRTC. Regulations and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.” At the hearing, it is represented by Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by order, dated 23.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.5998 of 2009. In the said order, this Court held as under: “As noted above, the ground of termination of the petitioner’s services was unauthorized absenteeism from 21.06.2008. The very allegation of unauthorized absence itself casts stigma to the workman. In addition to that the appellate authority categorically held that the petitioner was arrested and sent to remand in connection with the criminal case of waylaying and committing robbery. Admittedly, no enquiry was held and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the allegation of unauthorised absence. The Circular referred to above reads as under: “Instances have come to notice that the contract crew whose contract is terminated due to their involvement in absenteeism, accident/C&T irregularity cases are approaching the Courts and the Courts are pronouncing judgments that whenever stigma, like involvement in accident, cash and ticket irregularities and other serious misconducts, is attached, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted and further action has to be taken.” Having issued the Circular providing for a detailed enquiry, there is no justification to terminate the petitioner’s services without holding such enquiry. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the respondents that his absence was due to proper reasons, his absence cannot be treated as unauthorized absence warranting his removal. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with liberty to the respondents to hold an enquiry.” As the petitioner herein is similarly placed to the petitioner in the above-mentioned writ petition, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the above reproduced order with the direction that the reasons and directions contained therein shall form part of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd APRIL, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni