JUDGMENT : N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J. Heard Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Garima Dugar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 21.03.2015, issued by the respondent No. 5, releasing the petitioner from his apprentice training from the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC). 3. The brief facts requisite to be noticed for the purpose of adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding, is noted as under: The petitioner on completion of his certificate course in Mechanic Motor Vehicle trade from Industrial Training Institute(ITI), Jorhat, was engaged as an Apprentice (Trainee) for a period of 1(one) year by the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) authorities vide order, dated 03.08.2013. On completion of the said period of training; the petitioner was allowed to undergo further training for a period of 1(one) year w.e.f. 06.07. 2014, with the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC), at its establishment in Golaghat. It is the contention of the petitioner that while he was continuing as a Traninee, he was also engaged as a Conductor in an Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) Bus. The petitioner has projected that he was engaged as a Conductor in an ASTC Bus bearing Registration No. AS-20/0949 for a trip carried out by the said bus from Barting Nowkalia in Golaghat to Pursuram Kunda and back under the Dharmajyoti Scheme. The said trip was stated to have started in the evening of 10.03.2015, with the petitioner as its Conductor. The said Bus had met with an accident on its return trip from Pursuram Kunda on 12.03.2015, resulting in injuries to the Driver of the said Bus and 11 other passengers. In pursuance of the inquiry conducted in the matter and it having come on record that the petitioner, herein, had unauthroizedly driven the said Bus on its return trip from Pursuram Kunda which had resulted in an accident occasioning; the respondent No. 5 vide order, dated 21.03.2015, proceeded to release the petitioner from his training in the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) on account of his such unauthorized act which had resulted in causing heavy damage to the Bus and also causing injuries to the 12 passengers including the Driver. The petitioner had vide his representation, dated 22.07.2015, approached the respondent authorities praying for withdrawal of the said order, dated 21.03.2015, and for permitting him to continue with his training in Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC). However, the same having not been considered; the petitioner has instituted this present proceeding. 4. Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner having been engaged in the said Bus as a Conductor only, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had driven the said Bus and accordingly, he could not have been held to be responsible for the accident occasioning to the said Bus. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent authorities had passed the order, dated 21.03.2015, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to place his case in the matter and accordingly, the said order having been so issued unilaterally by the respondent No. 5 in the matter; the same was so issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and administrative fair play. 5. Mr. Alam, learned counsel, has also submitted that the petitioner having been engaged as a Conductor in the said Bus, it has to be deemed that the petitioner is not an Apprentice Trainee with the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) but is an employee of the Corporation and accordingly, in the event, any misconduct was committed by the petitioner in the matter; a Disciplinary Proceeding was required to be so initiated against him basing on the disciplinary code of the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC). In the absence of any proceeding being so initiated against the petitioner in the matter, the passing of the impugned order, dated 21.03.2015, has caused prejudice to the service interest of the petitioner and accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court would be pleased to interfere with the order, dated 21.03.2015, and direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to continue in the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) as a casual worker in terms of the decision as taken by the Board of Directors(BoDs) in its 167th meeting held on 27.11.2014, to engage casual workers for carrying out the various mechanical works in the Corporation. 6. Per contra, Mr. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC), has submitted that the petitioner is only a Trainee with the Corporation under the provisions of the Apprentice Act, 1961, and cannot be deemed to be a worker in the said Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC). 7. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, by referring to the affidavit filed by the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) authorities in the matter has submitted that the inquiry made in the matter after the Bus, in question, had met with an accident, had brought to light that it was the petitioner who had forcefully occupied the driving seat of the Bus and started to drive the said Bus which ultimately resulted in the accident causing major damage to the vehicle as well as inflicting injuries to the passengers travelling in the said Bus including the Bus Driver. 8. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the said Bus, as a Mechanical Attendant and not as a Conductor. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that the petitioner having been released from his training with the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) vide the order, dated 21.03.2015, his case was not considered further for engagement on casual basis. 9. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that the petitioner being only a Trainee of the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC), the disciplinary code of the Corporation would not be attracted in his case and in terms of the engagement letter as an Apprentice Trainee issued to the petitioner; the respondents Corporation reserved to itself the right to eliminate him from training in the event of any negligence and/or any illegal act committed by him during the period of such training. Accordingly, Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the release of the petitioner vide the impugned order, dated 21.03.2015, was so done strictly in terms of the provisions of the engagement letter issued to the petitioner while engaging him as an Apprentice Trainee in the Corporation and an unauthorized act having been committed by him, the provisions of the said engagement letter having authorized the Corporation to eliminate him from training; the authorities of the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) proceeded to issue the impugned order, dated 21.03.2015, releasing him from his training and no illegality in this respect, was committed by the respondent authorities. 10. 10. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The facts as noticed hereinabove are not in dispute. The petitioner in the writ petition has projected that he was not involved in any accident and was not aware of the accident as reflected in the impugned order, dated 21.03.2015. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was continued in the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) as an Apprentice Trainee and was never issued with any order before his release from such training, either, appointing him against a regular post and/or on casual basis in the Corporation. 12. The petitioner was initially engaged as an Apprentice Trainee vide order, dated 03.08.2013. Clause 5 of the said order, dated 03.08.2013, stipulates that in case of any negligence and/or any illegal act committed by any Trainee during the period of training; the Corporation shall have the right to eliminate such Trainee from the training. The petitioner although had projected that he had no knowledge of the accident as reflected in the order, dated 21.03.2015, but, it is revealed from the writ petition that the petitioner was in the know-how of the reasons existing for releasing him from the training through the order, dated 21.03.2015, and also through an RTI reply, dated 17.07.2015, brought on record in the said writ petition by the petitioner. Inspite of the said position; the petitioner while submitting his representation against the order, dated 21.03.2015, on 22.07.2015, had not disputed the said position and had only stated that no such accident had occasioned on 12.03.2015, whereas, the materials on record would go to reveal that on 12.03.2015; the vehicle, at least, wherein, the petitioner was travelling, had met with an accident. 13. The above being the position and the petitioner in the writ petition, having not brought on record, any material to dispute that he had not driven the vehicle on 12.03.2015, while it had met with an accident; this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities having released the petitioner from his training vide the order, dated 21.03.2015, strictly in accordance with the stipulations as contained in the order, dated 03.08.2013, issued to the petitioner while permitting him to undergo training with the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC) as an Apprentice Trainee; the same cannot be held to be illegal and/or arbitrary. 14. 14. It is to be further noted that the petitioner having not been engaged with the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC), as its employee, either, on casual basis and/or against a regular post; the disciplinary code of the Corporation would not be applicable to the petitioner, herein, and he cannot claim that he was required to be released from his training only after initiating a Disciplinary Proceeding in the matter against him. 15. In view of the above position; this Court is of the considered view that the authorities of the Assam State Transport Corporation(ASTC) in issuing the order, dated 21.03.2015, has not committed any illegality and the same is in consonance with the stipulations as contained in the order, dated 03.08.2013, and accordingly, the impugned order, dated 21.03.2015, would not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusions; the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same, therefore, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.