IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8924 of 2008 Between: K. Laxman S/o. K. Rajaiah A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-op. Society Limited R/o. H.No.1-8- 701/1/1, Padma Colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman-cum-Person-in-Charge, A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-op. Society Limited, 3-5-770, Weavers Bhavan, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-op. Society Limited, 3-5-770, Weavers Bhavan, Narayanaguda, 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 an appropraite writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings Ref. No./99/Admn- II(3)/K.Laxman,DMO/KMNR/08/1176 dt. 17.03.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as illega,l arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.2, dat. 04.01.1999 and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHINDAM.PRATAP Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8924 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was working as a Divisional Marketing Officer, in the A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited. A preliminary enquiry was conducted in the year 2000 and the petitioner was issued a charge memo, dated 06.03.2000. This was followed by a supplementary charge memo, dated 29.11.2001. To both the charge memos, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The appointing authority directed domestic enquiry, and a report was filed on 25.06.2003 by the enquiry officer, holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice. Ultimately, through proceedings, dated 17.03.2008, the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 20.03.2008. The petitioner states that his left over service is only two months and unless the appeal is disposed of, before that date, the very purpose would be defeated. He raised several contentions vis-à-vis the order of dismissal, particularly in relation to certain findings recorded by the enquiry officer. Heard Sri Ch.Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Jagannadha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Though the petitioner had urged several contentions, including the one that the 2nd respondent deviated from the findings of the enquiry officer, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same, at this stage. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner attains the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008, it becomes essential that the appeal is disposed of before that date. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner by the end of May 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 24.04.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8924 of 2008 Date: 24.04.2008 JSU