IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5046 of 2008 Between: K.Mohan Kumar, S/o. S.Narayana, R/o. Satischandra Nagar, Timmapuram, East Godavari dist., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, rep by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dist 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, R.C.Puram Depot, E.G.Dist., .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Proceedings No. PA/20(181)2007-RM-EG dt.01-02-2008 and the termination order No. 01/2(1)/07-RCPM dt.11-03-2007 issued by 2nd and 3rd respondents herein in terminating the petitioner from service without following the principles of natural justice as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and further direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into the service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and full back wages. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 to 3.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a driver, on contract basis, in the year 2005. On 03.01.2007, when he was driving the bus on the route from Ramachandrapuram to Kakinada, an accident took place near the Government General Hospital, Kakinada. The bus hit a pedestrian, resulting in his death. Crime No.1 of 2007 was registered against the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC. The Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram, the third respondent herein, issued an order of termination, dated 11.03.2007, observing that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Manager, Rajahmundry, the second respondent. The review was rejected on 01.02.2008. Hence, this writ petition. It is contended that, respondent did not issue any show cause notice, much less, conducted departmental enquiry before terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that his termination is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the service regulations. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. A perusal of the order of termination passed by the third respondent discloses that neither any charge sheet was issued to the petitioner nor any departmental enquiry was conducted. It hardly needs any emphasis that an order of termination must precede a departmental enquiry, wherein an employee is given adequate opportunity to plead his case. Apart from there being a requirement under the principles of natural justice, it is mandatory under the relevant service regulations. It may be true, that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis. However, it is evident that the third respondent has chosen to terminate the services of the petitioner by making accusation. The order of termination cannot be sustained in law, since it was not preceded by the departmental enquiry. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the order of termination is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents to take necessary steps in accordance with law. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:11.03.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}