HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.9993 of 2010

Dated: 28-04-2010

Between:

U. Rajamallu.

… Petitioner

And

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director & others.

… Respondents

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.9993 of 2010

ORDER:

As it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that similar matters were already disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is also disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer : "to issue writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the office order No.T1/1(13)/2008-MTPL, dated 01.04.2008, passed by the 3 rd respondent in terminating the petitioner services without following any law and proceedings of the 2 nd respondent No.PA/19(34)2007;MR;KRMR, dated 16.05.2008 in confirming the 3 rd respondent order as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same with all consequential benefits including reinstatement with full back wages."

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, in the year 2007, 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.

4. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duties, from 27.02.2008 onwards, his services were terminated by an order, dated 01.04.2008, passed by the 3 rd respondent in Proceedings No.T1/1(13)/2008-MTPL. As against the said order, the petitioner has filed a review petition before the Regional Manager, who has rejected the same by an order, dated 16 th May 2008, passed in proceedings No.PA/19(34)/2007:RM:KRMR. Hence, this writ petition.

5. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner is that the order of termination is passed without conducting any inquiry and notice. It is his case that when proceedings are initiated for termination on the allegation of misconduct, respondents ought to have conducted inquiry by issuing notice and giving opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of this Court, dated 23 rd 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.

6. 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. 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. In the same circumstances, this Court has already allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.5998 of 2009.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of termination, dated 01.04.2008, passed by the 3 rd respondent in Proceedings No.T1/1(13)/2008-MTPL, and the order, dated 16.05.2008, passed by the 2 nd respondent-Regional Manager in Proceedings No.PA/19(34)/2007:RM:KRMR, are 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.

8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

______________________

28 th April 2010 ajr