THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8846 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and as it is submitted by both the learned counsel that similar such matters were disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. In this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in April, 2006. In the Corporation, as per the practice in vogue, as and when vacancies arise, such candidates are being absorbed into regular service. On the ground that the petitioner drove the vehicle bearing No.AP28Z 680 on 13.05.2007 on the route from Visakhapatnam to Bhadrachalam negligently and caused an accident, which resulted in damage to the bus, the third respondent – Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam, terminated his services vide order, dated 25.06.2007 holding that the joint accident committee came to the conclusion that he is held responsible for the accident and caused loss to the Corporation besides affecting its image. As against the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition before the second respondent - Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, who in turn, rejected the same vide proceedings, dated 26.09.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of filing explanation denying the alleged negligence on his part, the third respondent, without recording any valid reasons and conducting any regular enquiry, passed the order, dated 25.06.2007 terminating his services. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation itself has issued instructions vide Circular bearing No.PD 5/2010, dated 23.02.2010, according to which, before terminating the services of the contract employees, regular enquiry must be conducted into the allegations levelled against them. Therefore, the order, dated 25.06.2007 passed by the third respondent as confirmed by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 26.09.2007, is in violation of the instructions issued by the Corporation in the said Circular apart from the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that similar such matters were disposed of by this Court keeping it open to the respondents to conduct regular enquiry as per law. I have perused the copies of the termination order passed by the third respondent and the proceedings issued by the second respondent/reviewing authority, and the instructions issued by the Corporation in the above-mentioned Circular. Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, the impugned order is not a termination simplicitor. In terms of the contractual obligations, when an allegation is levelled against the petitioner that he is negligent in driving the vehicle and responsible for causing damage to the vehicle, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry by giving an opportunity of personal hearing. When the allegation casts stigma on the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the respondents to conduct enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and give him an opportunity. Though the explanation was submitted by the petitioner denying the allegations levelled against him, no reasons were recorded by the third respondent in the order, dated 25.06.2007 for terminating his services. In similar circumstances, this Court vide its order, dated 23.03.2009 in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, set aside the order of termination keeping it open to the respondents to conduct enquiry, if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons and following the order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 25.06.2007 passed by the third respondent and the proceedings, dated 26.09.2007 issued by the second respondent are hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to 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 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 order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th APRIL, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni