THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.1213 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Docket Order, dated 05.11.2025, in W.P.No.30561 of 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondent No.3. 3. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition, for the sake of convenience. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Driver in the respondent Nos.1 & 2/Corporation for more than 19 years. The respondent No.2 issued proceedings, dated 15.10.2025, terminating the services of the petitioner. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice in view of the fact that without conducting any enquiry, the termination order is passed against the petitioner. 5. He further submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider the case of the petitioner and declined to grant interim relief during the pendency of the main Writ Petition. As the issue of livelihood is involved, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the Writ Appeal. 6. On the other hand, Mr.V.Srinivasula Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, has placed written instructions, dated 24.11.2025, before this Court and basing on the same, he would submit that the Corporation is unable to run its unit at Tirupati, due to shortage of funds and in that process, three idle buses are proposed to transfer to some other places i.e., Vijayawada, Rajahmundry and Kurnool to get revenue. Accordingly, it was proposed to transfer some of the outsourced Drivers, who were engaged to perform duties, to the said units. In that process, vide Memo No.APTDC-14053/1/2025-Vig Sec-APTDC, dated 20.08.2025, the petitioner was transferred to Vijayawada unit. 7. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that, out of 09 H.M.V. Drivers transferred to Vijayawada unit, 02 persons have joined the duties in the new postings and the remaining 07 H.M.V. Drivers have not obeyed the transfer orders and misbehaved with the Divisional Manager, Tirupati. Accordingly, he gave a police complaint which was registered in F.I.R.No.496/2025 on 18.09.2025 at Tirupati Rural Police Station. Subsequently, a show cause notice vide file No.APTDC- 11/38/2025-Admin Sec-APTDC, dated 11.09.2025, was issued to the 07 H.M.V. Drivers on 11.09.2025 and they submitted their explanation and after examining the same, termination orders were issued to them. Page 3 of 5 Accordingly, he would submit that there is no illegality in the order of termination. 8. He further contends that the petitioner can raise all his contentions before the learned Single Judge, after filing counter-affidavit by the respondents, and seek appropriate relief before the learned Single Judge. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, it appears that the order of termination, dated 15.10.2025, is issued without any enquiry, which is contrary to settled law. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Dr.Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Versus Central University of Kerala and Others 1, wherein it was held that even a contract employee cannot be terminated on the acts of indiscipline without any enquiry. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner is working as Driver for considerable period with the respondent/Corporation and as such, before passing the order of termination of his services, which is a major punishment, the respondent/Corporation ought to have conducted an enquiry. But, it is absent in this case. In view of the same, the interest of the petitioner has to be protected, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 426 12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, with the following directions: (a) The parties on either side shall take steps, after filing the counter- affidavit, requesting the learned Single Judge, to take up the Writ Petition for expeditious disposal. (b) Till disposal of the Writ Petition, the respondent/Corporation shall continue the petitioner as Driver and allow him to work at the new place, where he was posted. (c) However, it is needless to say that the learned Single Judge shall dispose of the Writ Petition, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dated:01.12.2025 PKR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA 103 WRIT APPEAL No.1213 of 2025 Dated:01.12.2025 PKR