THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8954 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 2005. 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.AP10Z 1662 on 18.03.2008 on the route from Divitivaripalli to Chittoor in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the occurrence of accident and the spot death of one cyclist girl, by name, Kum. V.G.S.Bhavana, aged 11 years, the third respondent – Depot Manager, Chittoor, terminated his services vide order, dated 21.04.2008. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a representation, dated 12.06.2008 before the second respondent - Regional Manager, Tirupati, who in turn, rejected the same vide proceedings, dated 31.07.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as his services were terminated on the ground of misconduct, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry into the same and issued notice to him prior to the passing of order, dated 21.04.2008. 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 21.04.2008 passed by the third respondent as confirmed by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 31.07.2008, 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 13.04.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8118 of 2010. 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, and the instructions issued by the Corporation in the above-mentioned Circular. Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, the order, dated 21.04.2008 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 the accident, 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. In similar circumstances, this Court vide its order, dated 13.04.2010 in W.P.No.8118 of 2010, 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 13.04.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8118 of 2010, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 21.04.2008 passed by the third respondent and the proceedings, dated 31.07.2008 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 21st APRIL, 2010. kvni