IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.31547 OF 2011 BETWEEN: Smt. Akthari Begum …. Petitioner AND APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad and others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.31547 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned punishment issued in Proc.No.P3.2/(5)/2008-BDN, dated 18-12-2009, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Circular No.PD-97/88, dated 20-09-1988, as well as the action of the 2nd respondent in not disposing the petitioner’s late husband’s appeal, dated 28-04-2010, as illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to restore the basic of the petitioner’s late husband drawn as on the date of suspension fixed it in the R.P.S. 2009 and extend all the service terminal benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner joined in the respondents’ Corporation as driver on 18-01-1981 on regular basis. Vide order, dated 02-06-2009, the 3rd respondent – the Depot Manager, Bodhan, suspended the husband of the petitioner alleging that he committed a major accident by hitting a parked lorry, which resulted in serious injuries to the conductor and heavy loss to the Corporation and subsequently, a charge sheet was issued and the husband of the petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an enquiry was also conducted and basing on the enquiry report, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 18-12-2009, imposing punishment of reducing his pay to minimum in Gr.I Driver Scale. Questioning the same, the husband of the petitioner, preferred an appeal on 28-04-2010 before the 2nd respondent – Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nizamabad. The husband of the petitioner died on 22-07-2010. Due to pendency of the appeal, the petitioner received very less amount towards service benefits of her husband. The respondents have not taken any action on the appeal filed by the husband of the petitioner so far. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to pendency of the appeal and as the respondents did not modify the punishment imposed against the husband of the petitioner, she suffered a lot, that she received a meager amount towards the service benefits of her husband and that the petitioner is facing troubles to maintain her family with that meager amount. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, would submit that the appeal preferred by the husband of the petitioner is pending before the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent – The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad, to dispose of the appeal, dated 28- 04-2010, preferred by the husband of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J December 08, 2011. KTL