High Court set aside termination of a contract driver for unauthorized absence without notice or enquiry, ordering reinstatement without back wages by relying on a prior similar judgment.
Impugned order dated 30.08.2006 set aside; petitioner reinstated into service forthwith without back wages; respondents allowed to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.29764 of 2011
Between:
M.Nagendra
… Petitioner And
The Regional manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Region, Kurnool and another. … Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.29764 of 2011
ORDER:
Questioning the impugned order dated 30.08.2006, wherein the 2nd respondent, Depot Manager, terminated the contract engagement of certain contract employees, wherein the petitioner name is placed at Sl.No.10, filed the present writ petition.
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as contract Driver in the month of April, 2006 by the duly constituted selection committee and posted to the 2nd respondent’s depot. While so, he was absent from duties from 04.08.2006 to 30.08.2006 due to viral fever and jaundice and the same was intimated to the duty controller. After recovering from ill health, he approached the 2nd respondent for allotment of duties but he was informed that his services are terminated vide impugned order dated 30.08.2006.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have issued the impugned termination order dated 30.08.2006 without issuing any notice or without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court passed the order on 23.06.2011 in W.P. No.339 of 2011 directing the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner therein into service forthwith. Therefore, the petitioner herein is also entitled to similar relief granted in the said
writ petition.
On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation would submit that the petitioner did not evince any interest in performing his duties. The petitioner was terminated from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. The petitioner absented from duties just after his contract appointment of three months. Therefore, the impugned order is legal and sustainable. But, however, she does not dispute the order passed in similar case by this Court in W.P. No. 339 of 2011.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Admittedly, the petitioner appointment is on contractual basis and he absented from attending duties from 04.08.2006 to 30.08.2006 and therefore, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner, which is challenged in the present writ petition.
This Court in W.P. No.339 of 2011, while allowing the same, observed as under:
“This Court took the view that the very terms of the contract indicate the Service Regulations issued by the Corporation applied to such employees also and in a batch of writ petitions, the orders of termination passed by the Corporation, without issuing show cause notice and without conducting domestic enquiry, were set aside.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith, but he shall not be entitled to the back wages. It shall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, if they still feel that the same is necessary. There shall be no order as to costs.”
From a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.08.2006, it is clear that the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of unauthorized absence and no notice was issued and no enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. Therefore, as this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P. No.339 of 2001, following the said order, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
The impugned order dated 30.08.2006 is set aside and consequently directed the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith but without back wages. It is open for the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law, if they still feel that the same is necessary.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Date: 09.11.2011 LSK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether termination of a contract employee without issuance of notice or domestic enquiry is violative of principles of natural justice.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with or without back wages.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No. 339 of 2011Followed¶23
M. Nagendra
The Regional manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Region, Kurnool
Depot Manager
G. CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
