HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13033 of 2010 Dated: 10-06-2010 Between: D. Narasimhulu. … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13033 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari. The writ petition is filed, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No.E1/1(160)06- BPL, dated 12.12.2006, issued by the 1st respondent and also the Proceedings, dated 29.11.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.PA/19(125)2007-RM- Q, as unjust, invalid and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 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 from 15.07.2006 to 17.08.2006, his services were terminated by an order, dated 12.12.2006, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.E1/1(160)06-BPL. As against the said order, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the 1st respondent-Regional Manager, seeking to review the order of removal, passed by the 2nd respondent. The Regional Manager, by an order, dated 29th November 2007, passed in proceedings No.PA/19(125)/2007-RM-Q, has set aside the order of termination, but directed to re- engage the petitioner as a fresh Driver on contract basis. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service, but as he was denied the past service as contract Driver, he has filed this writ petition. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as he was appointed after following regular procedure for selections, and as the termination was on the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence, respondents ought not to have terminated him from service without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any notice to him. It is submitted that in any event, the appellate authority, while setting aside the order of termination, has erroneously ordered for re-engagement of petitioner as a fresh Driver on contract basis, due to which, he is losing his seniority in the contract service, for the purpose of absorption into regular service in the Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as no inquiry is conducted by the primary authority on the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence, the appellate authority ought to have given credit of his past service. 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 writ petition is covered to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. I have also perused the order of termination. 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. 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 petitioner’s representation in proper perspective and has ordered for re-engagement of petitioner as a fresh Driver on contract basis. In the same circumstances, this Court has already allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of termination, dated 12.12.2006, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.E1/1(160)/06-BPL, and the order, dated 29th November 2007, passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.PA/19(125)2007- RM-Q, are set aside, to the extent of engaging the petitioner as a fresh contract Driver. As it is stated that the petitioner has already been reinstated into service, he shall be given the benefit of seniority in contract service and is entitled 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. At the same time, it is also made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefit towards arrears of salary. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th June 2010 ajr