HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14613 of 2010 ORDER: 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 the respondent No.1 in terminating the petitioner as contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable, disproportionate and against to the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars by setting aside Termination order No.M1/255(59)/08- DM:NKD, dated 03/03/2008 of the respondent No.1 herein and consequential orders and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits.” The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, in 2006, in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). 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. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duties for the period from 19/02/2008 to 03/03/2008, his services were terminated by an order, dated 03/03/2008, passed by the 1st respondent in his file order No.M1/255(59)/08-DM:NKD. As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Regional Manager, Medak Region, who, by his proceedings, dated 15/09/2008, rejected the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that in as much as his appointment was made after following the regular selection process, it is not open for the respondents to terminate his services without conducting any inquiry and without giving him opportunity. It is submitted that as the termination is not termination simplicitor, but is based on the alleged misconduct, the respondents ought to have conducted inquiry after issuing notice to him. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of this Court, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. Even the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has fairly conceded that the subject matter of the case is covered to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. I have also perused the order passed by the primary authority. From a perusal of the order, it is evident that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity before passing the order of termination. In as much as the petitioner was appointed after following the regular process for selection, when his services are to be terminated, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to conduct inquiry before passing the order of termination. Even the appellate authority has not considered the matter on merits. Under similar circumstances, this Court allowed a writ petition in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of termination, dated 03//03/2008, passed by the 1st respondent in Termination order No.M1/255(59)/08-DM:NKD, is set aside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a Driver 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 Drivers, 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. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 25th June, 2010 SKM