HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10006 of 2010 Dated: 28-04-2010 Between: M. Narasimha. … Petitioner And The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Charminar Division & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10006 of 2010 ORDER: As it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that similar matters were already disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is also disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer : “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of respondent No.1 in not ordering re- engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable, as the termination of the petitioner is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent proceedings, dated 27.06.2009 as re- engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including regularisation.” 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis, in the year 2006, in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), and is posted in the 1st respondent Depot. It is stated that though the appointments are made initially on contract basis, but such appointments are made after following the due procedure prescribed for selection of regular candidates, and as per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the persons employed on contract basis will be absorbed into regular service, as and when the vacancies arise. 4. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, his services were terminated by an order, dated 09.02.2009, passed by the 2nd respondent Depot Manager in Proceedings No.P2/1(01)/2009-RJNR, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absented from duty, from 01.01.2009 onwards. Aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager. The appellate authority, by his orders, dated 27.06.2009, passed in Proceedings No.PA/19(Cond.)/2009-DVM/CR, has ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner as a fresh Conductor on contract basis. 5. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in view of the directions issued by the appellate authority to re-engage him as a fresh Conductor, he is deprived of the benefit of seniority in contract service. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as much as no inquiry is conducted before passing the order of termination, the appellate authority ought to have allowed the appeal as prayed for. He placed reliance on the orders, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. 6. I have perused the orders passed by the primary authority and also the appellate authority. The order of primary authority is not preceded by any inquiry and notice. Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, but as the termination is based on the alleged misconduct, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to issue notice and conduct inquiry before passing such termination orders. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents also admit that similar such matters were allowed by this Court. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings, dated 09.02.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.P2/1(01)/2009-RJNR, and the further orders, dated 27.06.2009, passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.PA/19(Cond.)/2009-DVM/CR, are set aside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Conductor on contract basis. It is made clear that on such reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Conductors, appointed along with him. It is also made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th April 2010 ajr