THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 819 of 2010 Dated: 27.01.2010 Between: S.K.Valli, Kurnool District. … Petitioner And The APSRTC, Rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 819 of 2010 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “To issue a writ, 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.02/2(16)/2008-Krnl-1, dated 2.9.2008, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent herein in Proc.No.PA/19 (157)/2008-RM(Q), dated 28.10.2008 as high handed and arbitrary action, without jurisdiction, against to the principles of natural justice and as such liable to beset aside in the interest of justice by ordering the respondents to extend all consequential benefits forthwith and pass such other order or orders.” When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by an order of this Court in W.P.No.17578 of 2008, dated 14.08.2008, wherein it was held as under: “Admittedly, neither any departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner, nor the petitioner was issued any show cause notice, before the impugned order, terminating her services, was passed. Though the appointment of the petitioner is contractual in nature, any disciplinary action can be taken against her, only after conducting departmental inquiry. This Court held so, in W.P.No.8685 of 2001 through its judgment dated 21.08.2001.” The fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. In the circumstances, following the order in W.P.No.17578 of 2008, dated 14.08.2008, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside leaving it open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law, if they so choose. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 27.01.2010 KLP