JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - Name of the petitioner was included in the select/waiting list of conductors, prepared by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. These conductors were to be engaged on daily wages. By an order, dated 7 March 1989, copy of which has been filed as annexure V to the writ petition, the name of the petitioner was removed from the aforesaid list, against which he made a representation to the higher authorities, which has been dismissed by order, dated 11 July 1989. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and the writ petition is being disposed of accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on two grounds, namely : (i) that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before passing these orders; and (ii) he has completed more than 240 days of service, as such, his services are liable to be regularised. Learned counsel for the respondents has on the other hand supported the impugned orders. 4. The impugned orders of the Regional Manager (annexure V to the writ petition) is a non-speaking order. However, the appellate order copy of which has been filed as annexure VIII the writ petition discloses the following three grounds on the basis of which the impugned action has been taken against the petitioners : (i) On Jaunpur Vindbyachal route the vehicle in which the petitioner was working as conductor was checked and it was found that 12 passengers were travelling without tickets. (ii) On 22 December 1988, an anonymous complaint has been received against the petitioner. (iii) While inspecting the documents at Mugra Badshapur Depot, there were cuttings and over writings on certain papers and a sum of Rs. 97.75 was found short. 5. In this connection my attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the corporation to the averments made in Para. 3(iv)(c) of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation in pursuance whereof he has made statement, a copy of which has been filed as annexure I to the supplementary counter-affidavit. From the perusal of this statement, it appears that the petitioner was asked to make statement on certain points, which he did in the form of question-answer. From the perusal of this statement, it appears that the petitioner was asked to make statement on certain points, which he did in the form of question-answer. From the perusal of this statement, it is clear that the petitioner was not asked to explain about 12 passengers travelling without tickets on Jaunpur Vindhyachal route, which was one of the main charges against the petitioner. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijai Prakash Pandey v. Deputy General Manager [Writ Petition No. 11621 of 1988, decided on 14 December 1988], has laid down that while removing the name of an employee from the list a reasonable opportunity of being heard has to be given to him. It was further held that if the opportunity has not been in respect of one of the incidents on the basis of which impugned orders have been passed, the orders are liable to be set aside, if from the reading of the impugned orders it is not clear as to what view the appellate authority would have taken in case the said incident was not before it. In the instant case the order of the appointing authority (annexure V to the writ petition) is also almost non-speaking order although, it has referred to three incidents on the basis of which the impugned action was taken against the petitioner. It is, thus, not clear as to what view the authorities would have taken if the incident in respect of which the petitioner was not given an opportunity was not before it. The instant case is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision referred to above. 7. As the petitioner succeeds on the first ground, it is not necessary to decide any other point. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders, dated 7 March 1989, passed by the Regional Manager and 11 July 1989, passed by the Deputy General Manager, annexures V and VIII respectively to the writ petition are quashed. Petitioner is liable to be reinstated. It will, however, be open to the respondents, if considered necessary, to proceed with the inquiry afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.