THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6948 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner joined the services of APSRTC in the year 1987. He was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence, through order dated 13-02-2009, passed by the Depot manager, Chilakaluripet, the 3rd respondent herein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, the 2nd respondent. The appeal was partly allowed through order dated 01-07-2009, directing that the petitioner shall be taken into service, and that he shall report to the Depot Manager, Vinukinda, the 4th respondent. The petitioner submitted a representation on 16-07- 2009, to the 2nd respondent, requesting that he be sent for medical examination to find out his fitness. Stating that no reply was received from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner submitted another representation, dated 09-11-2009, to the 4th respondent, to permit him to report to duty. He was issued a copy of the office order dated 20-08- 2009, through which, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that, on account of his failure to report to duty within one week, the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 01-07-2009 is deemed to have been cancelled. The petitioner states that this order was communicated to him only on 30-11-2009, after he reported to duty to the 4th respondent. He submits that there is absolutely no justification for the respondents in not acceding to his request. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner did not avail the benefit under the order dated 01-07-2009, and he was to blame himself, for the present state of affairs. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order dated 13-02-2009, passed by the 3rd respondent; before the 2nd respondent. Substantial relief was granted to him. The order impugned in the appeal was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to report to duty, to a different depot, i.e., the 4th respondent, within one week. The petitioner did not join the duty, as directed. On the other hand, he claims to have made a representation to the 2nd respondent, with a request to send him to medical examination, to ascertain his fitness, to discharge the duties of driver. There was no prompt reply. Having waited for few months, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent on 09-11-2009, with a request to permit him to join duty. Even by that time, the 2nd respondent did not express his views on the representation made by the petitioner. When such is the case, the 4th respondent cannot take the view, that the order dated 01-07-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent is deemed to have been cancelled. It is ultimately for the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner. This Court passed an interim order, directing that the petitioner shall be subjected to medical examination. It is stated that the petitioner has since been examined. The result of the same can be taken into account by the 2nd respondent. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner, duly taking into account the medical report, relating to the fitness of the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.13-12-2010. Sj/KO