Allowed

Medisetti Laxmana Rao, v. The Depot Manager

Telangana HC1 Apr 2010WP/7057/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the termination of his contract appointment as a driver after an accident, the court held that termination was arbitrary without a prior enquiry. Relying on precedent, the court set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned termination order of 10.03.2008 set aside; respondents directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and give all entitled benefits.

Medisetti Laxmana Rao, Vs The Depot Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7057 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in 2005, has questioned the order, dated 10-03-2008, by which, the first respondent terminated his contract appointment on the ground that he drove the vehicle bearing No.AP11Z 4269 on the route Seeleru to Visakhapatnam on 27.11.2007 in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident by hitting a motorbike, as a result of which, the rider and the pillion rider of the bike sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, the pillion rider died in the hospital during treatment.

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of termination cannot be passed unless an enquiry is conducted into the allegation made against the petitioner. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted to by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical writ petition i.e. W.P.No.25122 of 2008, this Court held that without conducting detailed enquiry into the allegations made against a delinquent, the respondents cannot terminate his services and accordingly, set aside the termination order and directed the respondents to reinstate him into service.

¶6

Though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, his services were terminated on the allegation of negligence in driving the above-mentioned vehicle. However, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry by framing a charge against him. A perusal of the

¶7

impugned order shows that no such enquiry is conducted.

¶8

For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the order, dated 02.04.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25112 of 2008, this Writ Petition is allowed, order, dated 10.03.2008 is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and give all the benefits, to which, he is entitled to. It is made clear that if there are any allegations against the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶9

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶10

1^st APRIL, 2010.

¶11

kvni

Medisetti Laxmana Rao, v. The Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medisetti Laxmana Rao, v. The Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.P.Suvarna Vs The Director General, Fire Service Department

P. Parandham Kumar Vs The Director (Paandw)

S. Rajendra Prasad, EC.NO.2913089 Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

Pilla Apparao Vs Sec.Financeandcommerce INDIAAND3 Others

D. Maheswari, Vs The Project Director

K.Srinivasa Reddy Vs The Director General ,Border Security Force