HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No. 4132 of 2010 DATE: 24.02.2010 Between: K. Taraiah … Petitioner And A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No. 4132 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent corporation in the year 1989 and his services were regularized in the year 1992. The petitioner is alleged to have driven an RTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 5432 in a rash and negligent manner on 06.12.2000 and hit against a cyclist, and due to the impact, the cyclist fell on road and the bus run over him resulting in his instantaneous death. Basing on a complaint given by one B. Prasad, a case in crime No.363 of 2000 for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC has been registered against the petitioner by the S.H.O., Sanathnagar P.S. Simultaneously, the Depot Manager, Jeedimetla Depot, initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued charge sheet to the petitioner. Subsequently, basing on the enquiry conducted by the Chief Inspector, Sanathnagar Division, that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, the Depot Manager, Jeedimetla Depot, has passed an order dated 26.07.2001 removing the petitioner from service. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent on 16.08.2001, who, by an order dated 31.12.2001, disposed of the appeal holding that the petitioner be reinstated into service and transferred to Kukatpally depot and his annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect be stopped. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent issued proceedings No.P2/255(1)2001-KP, dated 15.01.2002, reinstating the petitioner into service, on some terms and conditions, as directed by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, as the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, found the petitioner not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly acquitted him in C.C.No.93 of 2001 by judgment dated 07.12.2004, the petitioner filed a review petition before the 2nd respondent on 27.12.2007 seeking to drop the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent. But however, as no orders have yet been passed, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. 3. The facts are not in dispute. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner filed a review petition before the 2nd respondent as early as on 27.12.2007, in my considered view, the 2nd respondent should have decided the said review petition. However, as it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the review petition has been pending before the 2nd respondent for the last two years, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the Rules, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 24th February, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by five days. (b/o) cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No. 4132 of 2010 (Disposed of) 24th February, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by five days. (b/o) cbs