HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.9573 of 2010 Date: April 26, 2010 Between: C. Sanjanna, S/o. S.C. Rangappa, aged 33 years, Occ: Driver, C.No.35421, R/o. Patcharu Mekalapalle Village, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapur District … Petitioner And The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and two Others … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, proceedings No.01/1(11)/2007-TDP, dated 01-09-2007, issued by the third respondent, Depot Manager, ASPRTC, Anantapur, Anantapur District, terminating the services of the petitioner herein, is questioned. The petitioner was appointed in the respondents- Corporation as Driver on contract basis on 05-07-2007 and posted at Tadipatri Depot. Though his appointment was made on contract basis, it is stated that regular selection procedure has been followed and as per the practice in vogue, employees who are appointed on contract basis are being absorbed into regular service as and when vacancies arise. On the ground that when the petitioner was performing duty on the bus bearing No.AP-10-Z- 8631, on 06-08-2007, he caused an accident, by dashing against an auto, his services were terminated by the impugned proceedings, attributing negligence on his part. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was appointed on contract basis, selections have been made by following the process contemplated for selection of candidates into regular service of the Corporation. It is stated that as much as his services are terminated, by alleging misconduct on his part, it was not open to the respondents to have done so, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to him. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in identical circumstances, this court, in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, set aside the order of termination of the petitioner therein, by order dated 23-03-2009. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation admits the same. I have perused a copy of the impugned proceedings, whereby the services of the petitioner are terminated. The said termination not a termination simplicitor. By the impugned proceedings, misconduct is attributed to the petitioner; namely that he was rash and negligent in driving the bus and thereby caused the accident. When such is the case, the respondents ought not to have terminated the services of the petitioner without conducting enquiry and putting him on notice. For the aforesaid reasons and also in view of the order dated 23-03-2009 passed by this court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009, this writ petition is allowed and proceedings No.01/1(11)/2007- TDP, dated 01-09-2007, issued by the third respondent, Depot Manager, ASPRTC, Anantapur, Anantapur District is set aside. Further, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Driver on contract basis. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits that are extended to similarly placed contract employees. However, if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking necessary action against him in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 26, 2010 MRR