IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8613 of 2008 Between: Bheemisetty Seshaiah, S/o. B.Nagaiah, A.P.S. Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, R/o. H.No.81-5-S-8-1(Plot No.37), 2nd Lane, Sai Nagar, Near ITC, NH-7, Kurnool-518002. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., rep by its Chairman, Hyderabad, A.P., 2 The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Somajiguda, Civil Supplies Bhavan,Hyderabad. 3 The District Manager, A.P.Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Kurnool, Kurnool District. ....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to Proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent P. Admn.A2/12992/2003 dt.09.03.2004 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional more particularly it amounts to violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension is as on the duty and extend all consequential benefits Seniority, Promotion etc. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.LAKSHMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.LINGA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Manager in the A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by serving a charge sheet, dated 24.07.2003. After the petitioner submitted explanation, disciplinary enquiry was conducted and a report, dated 31.12.2003, was submitted. Based upon the same, the second respondent passed an order, dated 09.03.2004, imposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect and directing that the period of suspension shall be treated as not on duty. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 08.05.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not disposed of the appeal so far. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is, no doubt, true that the appeal preferred by the petitioner does not contain the elaborate grounds, nor is it in any prescribed form. All the same, once the petitioner preferred an appeal, it cannot be kept pending for years together. Nearly four years have elapsed. Therefore, the Writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the petitioner to supplement the grounds of appeal, in the meanwhile. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.19.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}