IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 11210 of 2001 Between: M. Arvind Reddy, s/o.M. Keshav Reddy, R/o.Plot No.10, Happy Valley Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Bank, Rep.by its General Manager(HRD) HO., Hyderabad. 2 Disciplinary Authority & Personnel, Manager, Andhra Bank, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus delcare the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension in pursuance of the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in Proceedings No. 666/20/V/T-35/1338, dt.30.3.95 even after a lapse of 6 years as being illegal, arbitrary & unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to fortwith restore the posting of the petitioner by the granting the petitioner all consequential benefits and further direct the respondents to drop all proceedings in pursuance of Proceedings No. 666/20/V/T-35/1338, dt.30.3.95 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension in pursuance of the orders of respondent No.2 passed in proceedings No.666/20/V/T-35/1338, dated 30.03.1995 even after a lapse of 6 years as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith restore the posting of the petitioner. 2. This Court was not pleased to suspend the said order of suspension. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel, Dr.Lakshmi Narasimha, submitted that subsequently, the said order of suspension was revoked. 3. In the light of the said revocation, this Court is of the view that no further orders can be passed in this writ petition. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dated June 12, 2009 KSH