IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8433 of 1999 Between: Y.S. Babu, S/o Ramanadham, R/o H.No. 9-1-19/1, Vinayakanagar, Langar House, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., Rep. by Mnaging Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager-II, O/o Regional Manager (R.R), Imlibun Bus Station, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vikarabad Depot, Vikarabad, R.R.Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue am orde or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in issuing the suspension order vide Proc. No. RM(RR)/114(1)/98 dt:19.3.1999 as illegal, arbitrary as the same was issued after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings by the disciplinary authority and as such the appellant authority have no jurisdiction to issue the order dt:19.3.99 and to set aside the same in the interest of justiced with a consequentil direction to the 2nd resopondent herein to treat the period of suspension was on duty with all benefits Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8433 of 1999 ORDER: The order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.3.1999 in placing the petitioner under suspension is impugned in this writ petition. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would state that consequent to the disciplinary proceedings which resulted in imposition of minor penalty on the petitioner, the appellate authority had suo motu, even without an appeal being preferred by the petitioner, reviewed the order of the original authority and had placed the petitioner under suspension. Learned Counsel would state that under the statutory regulations, it is only the authority above the appellate authority, who was entitled to review the order and not the appellate authority himself. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation would fairly state that this indeed is the requirement under the statutory regulations. Since it is not in dispute that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 19.3.1999, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from taking action, if he so desires, in accordance with law. No costs. ___________ 13-6-2008 asp