IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8742 of 2008 Between: A. Durgaiah, S/o. Late Buchaiah, E.No. 290639, R/o. 1-7-58/1, Brahman Street, Medak. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Medak Region, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Sangareddy, Medak District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District. .....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 issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned punishment Proc. No. M1/2(23)/2000-MDK dated 30-3-2002 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No. PA/26(35)/2002-DVM:SRD dated 17-3-2003, as well as the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing the review petition dated 17-11-2003 as arbitrary, unjust, capricious in not disposing the review petition dated 17-11-2003 as arbitrary, unjust, capricious and in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: Smt.B.G.Uma Devi The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 22.01.2001, alleging that he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to two persons riding a scooter. The petitioner submitted his explanation and departmental enquiry was held. Through its order, dated 30.03.2002, the third respondent imposed punishment of deferment of one increment to the petitioner. The same was affirmed by the second respondent in the appeal. The petitioner claims to have filed a review before the first respondent and alleges that no orders have been passed thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner presented the review on 17.11.2003, aggrieved by the punishment imposed by the third respondent. Nearly three and half years have elapsed and there cannot be any justification to keep the review pending further. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass orders in the review presented by the petitioner, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}