IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26055 of 2008 Between: Md. Farath Hussain, S/o.Md. Sadath Hussain, Chassis Shop, Zonal Work Shops, Uppal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Works Manager, APSRTC, Zonal Work Shops, Uppal, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Works Manager-I, APSRTC, Zonal Work Shops, Uppal, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in recovering an amount of Rs.96,149/- from the petitioner is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and against to the principles of natural justice by setting aside proceedings No. ZWS8/758(1)/2003-UPL, dt. 12-10-2007of the respondent No. 1 herein and consequently direct the respondents not to recover any amounts from the petitioner's salary in concerned with above proceedings and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26055 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 12.10.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, directing recovery of an amount of Rs.96,149/- from the salary of the petitioner in 40 instalments, 39 months @ Rs.2,404/- per month and Rs.2,393/- in the 40th month, commencing from the salary bill of October, 2007 to be paid in November, 2007, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents not to recover the said amount from his salary. Today, when the writ petition is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted to by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that questioning similar order dated 12.10.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent, one Sri A.Anjaneyulu, filed writ petition in W.P.No.13425 of 2008, and this Court by order dated 26.06.2008, disposed of the said writ petition directing the 1st respondent to examine the matter and indicate his opinion as to the manner in which the impugned order passed against the petitioner shall be dealt with, and that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, and till then, directed the respondents not to effect any deduction from the salary of the petitioner. Since the impugned order is similar to the one that was questioned by one Sri A.Anjaneyulu in W.P.No.13425 of 2008, and as agreed to by both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, following the order dated 26.06.2008, and for the reasons mentioned therein, this writ petition is also disposed of with the following directions, as made therein: “The 1st respondent shall examine the matter and indicate his opinion as to the manner in which the order, dated 12.10.2007, passed against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent shall be dealt with. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents shall not effect any deduction from the salary of the petitioner.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 28.11.2008 va/ksr