IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20307 of 2000 Between: G.Vishunvardhan Rao, s/o. Seetharamaiah, R/o. Husnabad, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by it's Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in NO.LC/M1/785(111)/95-RM-ADB Dt.11-5-2000 rejecting the review petition submitted by the petitioner and confirming the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years besides treating the period of absence duty from the date of suspension till reports for duty as not on duty, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, shockingly disproportionate and violative of Articles 14,16, and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to grant annual increments which were illegally withheld during the period of suspension and after raising the suspension and also to treat the period of absence from the date of suspension till he reports for duty as "ON DUTY" and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : A Senior Assistant working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of the order dated 11.05.2000, passed by respondent No.2, in Proceedings No.LC/M1/785(iii)/95;RM;ADB. 2. By the aforesaid order, the representation which was considered pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, was rejected. During the year 1993, the petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant (P) in the Depot Manager’s office of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at Mancherial in Adilabad District. Pointing out several lapses in discharging his job, which amount to misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and ten charges were framed against him. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanation, denying the said charges, dissatisfied with the same, a regular inquiry was conducted, and at first instance, he was removed from service by the Depot Manager by an order dated 23rd August 1993. As against the order of removal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager as per the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The appellate authority, by his order dated 26.11.1993, allowed the appeal in part and substituted the punishment of removal with that of reversion to the post of Junior Assistant from Senior Assistant for a period of three years. As against the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in review before the Regional Manager. The Regional Manager, by his order dated 10.05.1994, has allowed the review in part and restored the petitioner’s service to the post of Senior Assistant for the rest of the period, but, imposed the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Challenging the said order passed by the review authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.5678 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court, without going into merits of the case, has permitted the petitioner to make a representation before the review authority, and directions were issued to consider the same. Pursuant to the said representation, the review authority has passed the impugned order, by considering and rejecting the petitioner’s representation by impugned order dated 11.05.2000, passed in Proceedings No.LC/M1/785(iii)/95;RM;ADB. 3. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that inspite of the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved, the review authority has not granted the relief by setting aside the orders of the primary authority and the appellate authority. Further, it is submitted that the review authority has not re- considered the matter as per the directions of this Court. 4. In this case, it is to be noted that the review authority’s order has become final and it was not interfered with in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.5678 of 1995. In that view of the matter, the review authority has reconsidered the matter in the light of the directions issued by this Court, and after taking into consideration all the relevant factors, imposed the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years, which will have effect on future increments. Accordingly, the said representation of the petitioner was rejected. 5. Even in the present writ petition, it is to be noted that the earlier orders of the primary authority, removing the petitioner from service, which is modified by the appellate authority in the order dated 26.11.1993, and further, modified by the review authority in the order dated 10.05.1994, are not the subject matter of this writ petition. As much as the said orders have become final, it is not open for the petitioner to plead in this writ petition about the validity of the said orders on the ground that the charges were not proved and the punishment imposed is grave in nature. In view of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the review authority has reconsidered and found that no further consideration is required. As much as the said authority has already considered and interfered with the punishment of the appellate authority by modifying the punishment from that of reversion to the post of Junior Assistant, to that of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to grant the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. 6. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as much as the review authority has already considered the matter, the representation of the petitioner ought to have been considered by any other higher authority than the Regional Manager. In that view of the matter, though I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Regional Manager, I keep it open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the higher authority than the Regional Manager, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and if such a representation is made, the same may be considered and appropriate orders may be passed by the authority concerned, within six months from the date of making such representation. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the authorities, to consider modifying the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th February 2009. ajr