THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6959 OF 2010 Dated: 29.03.2010 Between: K.P.V.S.Reddy. .. Petitioner. And The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X roads, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing at the admission stage. The petitioner is working as a Shramik in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation of Kadapa District. On the ground that he has indulged in misconduct by resale of meals coupons at APSRTC canteen, ZWS/Kadapa, on 23.12.2008, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The 3rd respondent-Works Manager in the Corporation of Kadapa District, who is the disciplinary authority, by order dated 31.08.2009 in proceedings No.P1/118(2)/09- ZWS/Kdp, ordered removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent- Executive Director (K & N) Zones, APSRTC, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent, who is the appellate authority, taking into consideration of the circumstances of the case and also the service of the petitioner, by order dated 14.12.2009 in proceedings No.PA/19(27)/09-ED (K & N), has modified the punishment of removal of the petitioner to that of deferring his increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and also ordered recovery of Rs.18,097/-. As against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner has filed review petition before the 1st respondent-Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad, on 12.01.2010, and the same is pending consideration. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no charge with regard to his causing the alleged loss of revenue to the Corporation and there was no enquiry in that regard and, as such, the appellate authority ought not to have ordered for deferring the increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and recovering an amount of Rs.18,097/- from him. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the review petition preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, the petitioner can as well wait till disposal of the same. I have perused the charges framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on two charges, namely, resale of meals coupons at canteen and causing loss of revenue to the Corporation by reselling the meals coupons at canteen. From the record, it appears that no enquiry was conducted with regard to quantum of alleged loss caused to the Corporation. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that there is no basis to recover any amount from the petitioner. However, since the review petition filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is pending consideration, it is not desirable for this Court to record any definite finding with regard to recovery of amount from the petitioner, but I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the review petition preferred by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and till such disposal, no amount shall be recovered from the salary of the petitioner, and the punishment of deferring increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect, as ordered by the appellate authority, will be subject to outcome of the review petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 29.03.2010 v v