Telangana High Court
WP/28289/2009 of S.Mallakarjuna Rao Vs The APSRTC., rep.by its Managing Director, on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28289 OF 2009 Between: S.Mallikarjuna Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No. 28289 OF 2009
Between:S.Mallikarjuna Rao
AND
..... PETITIONER
The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad,Hyderabad and others
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondents:The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No. 28289 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare theaction of respondent No.3 in terminating the petitioner’s services withoutholding enquiry as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner was appointed as a driver on contract basis inGiddalur Depot. On the alleged ground that he absented from dutyunauthorisedly from 11.10.2007 to 27.11.2007, his services wereterminated vide order dated 27.11.2007 passed by respondent No.3. Appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by respondentNo.2 vide his order dated 06.02.2008, the petitioner filed the present writpetition.
When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to mynotice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised inthis writ petition is squarely covered by an order of this Court inW.P.No.17578 of 2008, dated 14.08.2008, wherein it was held as under:
“Admittedly, neither any departmentalinquiry was conducted against the petitioner, nor the petitioner was issued any showcause notice, before the impugned order,terminating her services, was passed. Though the appointment of the petitioner iscontractual in nature, any disciplinary actioncan be taken against her, only afterconducting departmental inquiry. This Courtheld so, in W.P.No.8685 of 2001 through itsjudgment dated 21.08.2001.”
In the circumstances, following the order in W.P.No.17578 of 2008,dated 14.08.2008, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside leaving it open to the respondents to proceed against thepetitioner, in accordance with law, if they so choose. No costs Date: 29.12.2009
_____________G. ROHINI, J.
Ivd