JUDGEMENT The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis on 28.04.2007. On 01.05.2007, he was assigned the duty of driving a bus on the route from Visakhapatnam to Saluru. An accident took place, leading to damage to the bus and minor injuries to a passenger. The 1st respondent issued a notice, dated 28.05.2007, stating that the reports of the Senior Traffic Inspector and the Joint Accident Committee revealed that the accident occurred, on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner. He was required to submit explanation, within seven days, as to why disciplinary action of termination from service shall not be taken against him. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a representation on the same day, requesting the 1st respondent to furnish the copies of the reports of Senior Traffic Inspector and Joint Accident Committee, so as to enable him to submit detailed explanation. On the next day i.e., 29.05.2007, the Depot Manager, 1st respondent herein, passed an order terminating the contract of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, narrating the circumstances, that led to the issuance of the order of termination. The various grounds urged by the petitioner are opposed. 3. Sri V.Vishwanatham, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination was not preceded by any departmental enquiry, and it was passed with undue haste. He also submits that a specific request made by the petitioner on 28.05.2007, to furnish the copies of the reports, was not acceded to, and the 1st respondent did not even make a reference to the said representation. 4. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that since the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, it was not obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct a departmental enquiry. He contends that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, and even after receipt of the same, he did not submit his explanation. 5. It is true that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a Driver and that an accident took place on 01.05.2007, when he was driving the bus. Taking note of this development, the 1st respondent issued a notice of termination on 28.05.2007. 5. It is true that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a Driver and that an accident took place on 01.05.2007, when he was driving the bus. Taking note of this development, the 1st respondent issued a notice of termination on 28.05.2007. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: "As per the Item No.6 of the contract agreement executed by you, if you indulge in any activity detrimental to the interest to the Corporation you will be liable for disciplinary action of termination from services. As such, you are advised to submit your explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice to why the above said disciplinary action of termination from services should not be taken against you, within the stipulated period failing which it will be assumed that you have no explanation to offer and further course of action will be initiated against you, basing on the evidence available on record." In clear terms, the 1st respondent indicated that disciplinary action would be taken against the petitioner. This naturally entailed in framing of charges and conducting of domestic enquiry. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents that a contractual appointment can be terminated without any enquiry, cannot be accepted. 6. In the notice for termination, dated 28.05.2007, specific reference was made to the reports of Senior Traffic Inspector and Joint Accident committee. The notice appears to have been served on the petitioner on the same day and without any further loss of time, he submitted a representation instantly, requesting the 1st respondent to furnish the copies of the reports, to enable him to file a detailed explanation. Curiously, the 1st respondent passed the order of termination on 29.05.2007 itself. 7. Two important aspects arise for consideration. The first is that the 1st respondent proceeded as though the petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.04.2007, as is evident from reference 5 of the order of termination. It is curious to note that the petitioner was not even appointed as a Driver, as on the date, on which he was said to have submitted explanation, much less he was served with any show cause notice. This shows clear lack of application of mind. Another facet of this is that the petitioner had full 7 days of time to submit his explanation. This shows clear lack of application of mind. Another facet of this is that the petitioner had full 7 days of time to submit his explanation. Even assuming that there is no valid explanation from him, the respondents were under obligation to wait till the said period expired. There cannot be any justification for passing the order of termination on the next day itself. 8. The second aspect is that the petitioner made a specific request to furnish the copies of the reports, which were relied upon by the 1st respondent. Either he should have complied with the request or indicated the reasons, as to why the request cannot be acceded to. He did neither. Therefore, the order of termination passed by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained in law. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order of termination, dated 29.05.2007, is set aside. It shall be open to the 1st respondent to initiate steps against the petitioner, in accordance with law, but only after reinstating him. It is also made clear that this order cannot be treated as laying down any particular procedure to be followed in the matters of this nature, and much would depend upon the terms of contract and the principles to be observed, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.