Telangana High Court
WP/27933/2010 of A. V. Swamy, Vs APSRTc, Rep by its VC AND MD on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27933 of 2010 (on being mentioned) ORDER: It appears that by mistake, an order, which was to be passed, similar to the one in W.P.No.23818 of 2010, the one in another batch of writ petition was passed. In that view of the matter, the
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.27933 of 2010
(on being mentioned)ORDER:
It appears that by mistake, an order, which was to bepassed, similar to the one in W.P.No.23818 of 2010, the one inanother batch of writ petition was passed. In that view of thematter, the order, dated 15.11.2010, is recalled and in its place,the following order is passed:
The petitioner was engaged as Driver on contractual basisby the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Hisservices were terminated, vide proceedings, dated 25.01.2008, bythe Depot Manager, Godavarikhani, respondent No.2 herein, onthe ground that he remained unauthorisedly absent from duties. The same is challenged in this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents.
It is, no doubt, true that the appointment of the petitioner ison contractual basis. However, the respondents are underobligation to issue show cause notice and conduct departmentalenquiry in case they intend to impose any punishment on suchemployees.
This Court took the view that the very terms of the contractindicate the Service Regulations issued by the Corporation applyto such employees also and in a batch of writ petitions, the ordersof termination passed by the Corporation without issuing showcause notice and without conducting domestic enquiry were setaside.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orderis set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith, but he shall not be entitled to be paid back wages. Itshall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinaryproceedings in accordance with law, if they still feel that the sameis necessary. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt:31.12.2010.
kdl