IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6430 of 2008 Between: M.I.Khan S/o.Md.Sharifuddin khan E.No.206885, of H.C.U Depot, R/o.H.No.9-3-218/5/B M.D.Line, Golconda, Hyderabad, AP ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mehdipatnam Depot Hyderabad, AP .....RESPONDENT 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 the action of the respondent in issuing office order No.01/2(4)/05-MP dated 20.6.2006 for imposing penalty of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect without perusing the comments/objections reply to show cause notice and without discussing the final order and without hearing the petitioner in person before imposing such harsh punishment is as illegal, unjust contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice by setting aside the order dated 20.6.2006 and directing the respondent to release the increments. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6430 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the H.C.U. Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. In the year 2005, he was working in the Mehdipatnam Depot. On 20.02.2005, he is said to have dashed the bus to a pillar of a fly over at Begumpet. Charge sheet was issued on 07.04.2005 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 13.04.2005. Through an order, dated 20.06.2006, the Depot Manager, Mehdipatnam imposed the punishment, which will have affect on the future increments of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Though several grounds are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in challenge to the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has to avail the remedy of departmental appeal to the Divisional Manager. The petitioner, no doubt, stated that he presented an appeal, but he is not certain as to the date on which, or before whom, he presented it. Be that as it may, the petitioner can be permitted to present the appeal at this stage also. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the competent authority. If the appeal is presented within fifteen (15) days from today, it shall be treated as having been filed within the period of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 26.03.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three (3) days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6430 of 2008 Date: 26.03.2008 JSU