THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3038 OF 2011 O R D E R : The writ petitioner has been engaged as a driver on contract basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He joined the service and was entrusted with the duties. On the ground that he remained absent unauthorizedly from 23.05.2007 onwards, the Depot Manager, Gadwal Bus Depot, the 2nd respondent herein, terminated the petitioner from service on 14.06.2007. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar and the same was rejected through his order dated 29.12.2010. The writ petitioner challenges the above said orders in this Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. This matter has been posted for being mentioned stating that when the matter was heard on 11.02.2011, a common order has been passed by this Court, dealing with the termination of contract drivers, but however, on the docket sheet, it is noted as if the Writ Petition is admitted and rule nisi is issued. It is pointed out that in all cases relating to contract drivers, whose services have been terminated, the following order is passed by this Court: “ Though the engagement of the writ petitioner was on contract basis, the Corporation was under obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under the Regulations for disciplinary matters. As per Circular No. PD-05/2009, dated 23.02.2009, issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, one is required to conduct an enquiry before passing any order of termination of service of contract employees. Neither any show cause notice was issued nor any domestic enquiry was directed. The order suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of prescribed procedure. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order of termination is set aside. The respondents shall reengage the petitioner into service within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to any back wages or other monetary benefits, on account of this order, and it shall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary action in accordance with law, if they so intend. No costs.” After perusing the record of the case, I am satisfied that there should be a similar order even in this case. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of termination dated 14.06.2007 is set aside. The respondents shall reengage the petitioner into service within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to any back wages or other monetary benefits, on account of this order, and it shall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary action in accordance with law, if they so intend. No costs. ---------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 09th August 2011 ksld