THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17214 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. I have heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner for a great while. He has put up a very valiant effort to demonstrate that the order passed by the Depot Manager, Chittoor on 29.03.2007 imposing the punishment of removal from service on the writ petitioner, who was working then as a driver, for having caused a fatal accident in which two persons, a motor cyclist and his pillion died, is illegal. That order of the Depot Manager was appealed against and the appellate authority has confirmed the punishment of termination from service but however, when a review application has been moved before the Regional Manager, Chittoor Region, the Regional Manager has considered the entire matter on merits and modified the punishment of termination from service imposed by the Depot Manager, Chittor for the following three reasons: 1) The writ petitioner had by then completed 11 years of satisfactory service as a driver and his past service was blemish less; 2) The accident had occasioned in somewhat peculiar circumstances in the sense that the site of the accident was near about a roadside village. 3) There appears to be some material on record for one to come to a conclusion that the motor cyclist also has contributed in good measure to the accident. For these reasons, the Regional Manager has modified the punishment of termination into one of withholding of one annual grade increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. He has also ordered the period spent out of employment pursuant to the order passed on 29.03.2007 by the Depot Manger till the date of reinstatement to be treated as the period not spent on duty. The learned counsel Sri Peeta Raman has since realized that the Regional Manager, Chittoor has exercised his discretion in the matter on sound lines and hence, the order passed by him on 31.08.2007 does not require any modification in a judicial review exercise. However, Sri Raman tried to impress upon me that the Corporation has erred in not releasing the subsequent annual grade increments, which ought to have been released in favour of the writ petitioner as soon as the period of suspension has been completed. That is a separate aspect and a separate cause of action altogether. I have no doubt in my mind that the competent authority of the APSRTC, if approached by the writ petitioner, pointing out the lapse of not releasing the annual grade increment or increments, which are bound to be released in favour of the writ petitioner after he has completed the period of punishment, the same will be redressed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of any such representation. Acceding to the request made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Writ Petition is permitted to be withdrawn and accordingly, it is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 20th July 2010 ksld