1. Petitioner was a transport contractor with the A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (1st respondent). This writ petition is instituted assailing orders in Proceeding No.PDS/2/ Movt.FG.5(12)/1924/2008-09, dated 10.02.2009. By the aforesaid order, the respondent corporation terminated the contract of transportation, forfeited the pending bills, security deposit and bank guarantee and black-listed the petitioner from participating in any future tenders of the 1st respondent corporation.

2. On 17.10.2008, 300 bags of food grains consisting of 14.805 metric tons of rice were loaded into the motor transport vehicle bearing registration No.AP-02-T-0546 belonging to the petitioner in F.C.I. Godown, Jangalpally and stock was intended to be unloaded at MSL point of Tanakal. The said lorry did not reach MSL point upto 10.30 p.m., on 18.10.2008. Complaint was lodged on 18.10.2008 complaining against the petitioner and driver of the Truck. The complaint was registered as Crime No.85 of 2008 in P.S. Rapthadu. By order dated 20.10.2008, the contract of the petitioner was suspended by the 2nd respondent on the allegation that PDS stock/distribution system stocks were diverted. The empty Truck was traced in the premises of petrol bunk, near Rapthadu village. On 16.11.2008, the accused (driver, cleaner and the person who purchased the stock) were arrested and stocks were kept in court custody. The Criminal Court ordered to release the stock. Accordingly, stock was released and stocks were delivered to the MSL Point and were distributed to the beneficiaries. On 28.06.2009 Police filed charge sheet. Petitioner was not implicated and no allegations are made against the petitioner.

3. Challenging the orders of suspension of transport contract dated 20.10.2008, petitioner filed W.P.No.23972 of 2008. The said writ petition is disposed by this Court by order dated 04.11.2008 leaving it open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This Court further directed the respondents not to award the work in question to any third party.

4. By order dated 26.11.2008, explanation was called from the petitioner alleging that the contractor is also responsible for the acts of the driver of his vehicle, in which stocks were loaded for transportation. Explanation was called to show cause as to why transport contract should not be terminated as per clause No.3(iii) and 8(iv) of the agreement. Petitioner filed his explanation on 27.11.2008. The defence taken by the petitioner was that he was not aware of the diversion of the stocks, that illegality was committed by his employee, that driver of the vehicle was traced and arrested and the stocks were also recovered. He has also pointed out that the police have informed that petitioner was not involved in the alleged diversion of the stocks. Rejecting the contention of the petitioner in his explanation, final orders are passed on 10.02.2009, which is impugned in this writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent-corporation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is vitiated due to several illegalities. Order was passed without conducting any enquiry and without considering the explanation filed by the petitioner. The order impugned does not disclose the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that Joint Collector seems to have conducted enquiry beyond back of the petitioner. The Joint Collector did not issue notice to the petitioner when he conducted enquiry and the report of the Joint Collector and record based on which said report was drawn was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner had no occasion to go through the report of the Joint Collector and to respond to the same. The impugned order is based en