IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16188 of 2008 Between: M.V.N. Shyam, S/o. M.K. Sharma, R/o. Flat No. S-6, Ciizens Apartment, Shivagi Park Road, Shivagipalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 any Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned order under Memo No. HRD/Estt/MPP/F.No. 22/0 D.No. 29/08 dated 30-4-2008 as arbitrary,illegal and by nullifying the same direct my reinstatement together with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant and consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as Assistant Secretary (Legal) by the respondent, on contractual basis, for a period of one year on 27.10.2003. It was renewed from time to time and as of now, it is in force up to 30.11.2008. The respondent issued a Memo, dated 30.04.2008, terminating the agreement on the basis of the review of performance of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The engagement of the petitioner is purely on contractual basis and it is in force up to 30.11.2008. It was always open to the respondent to terminate the agreement Clause-I of the contract provided for termination of contract by either side by issuing notice of three months or by offering the salary for the same period. It is, no doubt, true that the impugned order makes an offer of three months salary to the petitioner in lieu of notice. If the termination were to have been in terms of Clause-I alone, no difficulty as such would have arisen. However, in para 2 of the order, a reference is made to review the performance of the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to handover the charge immediately. This reflects an element of evaluation of the work of the petitioner, for formation of an adverse opinion. That would, certainly, have bearing upon the career of the petitioner. If, in fact, the respondent wanted to take any disciplinary action or to pass any adverse order, it was under an obligation to issue notice and conduct enquiry. Admittedly, such a step was not taken in this case. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the respondent to issue fresh order terminating the contract in terms of Clause-I simplicitor either by issuing notice of three months or offering salary for the same period, without making reference to the performance of the petitioner. It is also directed that in case any reflection is to be made on the performance of the petitioner, the respondent shall issue notice and cause enquiry into the same. In case the respondent chooses the first option, the amount, if any, paid to the petitioner shall hold good for it. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.08.2008 kdl