IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4085 of 2009 Between: S.A.Salam S/o.Sri S.Madhar Saheb r/o.D.No.2/392,Nagarajupet,Kadapa Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep.by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The APSRTC ., rep.by its Executive Director Kadapa, Kadapa District 3 The APSRTC., rep.by its Regional Manager Kadapa, Kadapa Region, Kadapa District 4 The APSRTC, rep.by its Divisional Manager, Kadapa Kadapa Division, Kadapa District (R4 not proforma party in this petition) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing of the appeal/Review appeal of 2002 pending before the 1st respondent is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and contrary to law and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 2002 filed before the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner :MS.B.MALLESWARI Counsel for the Respondents.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Depot Clerk in the respondents- Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against him on the ground that he assaulted the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa, on 29.01.1981. The Disciplinary Authority/the Divisional Manager, Kadapa-4th respondent imposed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa Region, Kadapa-3rd respondent. The appeal came to be allowed in part modifying the punishment of removal from service to reinstatement with punishment of reduction in pay to the minimum of the scale applicable to the post of A.D.C and consequently, the petitioner came to be reinstated into service. He preferred review before the Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad-1st respondent. His review application stated to have been forwarded to the Executive Director, APSRTC, Kadapa-2nd respondent and the said review ended in dismissal on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the same, he filed revision before the 1st respondent on 19.10.1997. His revision is stated to be pending. Hence, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC received notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that his revision, as provided under Regulation 30 of the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, has not been disposed of by the 1st respondent. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the revision filed by the petitioner as provided under Regulation 30 of the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations and pass appropriate orders. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd March, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}