IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10079 of 2008 Between: O.S. Padmavathi W/o R.V. Ashok O/o Deputy General Manager (Opeations), Under GCM, AP Telecom, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom (BSNL), Door Sanchar Bhavan, nampally Station, Abids, Hyderabad-I, 2 The Deputy General Manage (Admn), O/o Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom, Abids, Hyderbad-1, ...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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in No. TA/STA/56/1-1/2004/OSP/19 dated 17-10-2006 in imposing a penalty of dismissal from service on the charge of unauthorized absenteeism without inquiry as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 and Article 311 of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and Consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.A.RAGHU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MOHAN The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner was dismissed from service on 17.10.2006, while working as Section Supervisor (Operative), on the allegation of unauthorized absence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, on 12.6.2007. Her grievance is that the appeal has not been disposed of, as yet. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner availed the departmental remedy of appeal, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2006, passed by the 2nd respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service. Though it cannot be said that there is undue delay in disposal of the appeal, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is out of service, the appeal needs to be disposed of, at the earliest. Notwithstanding the busy schedule, in which the 1st respondent has to act, allocation of some time for disposal of the appeal, would have its own utility, both from the point of view of the Organization, as well as the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pass orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 1st May 2008 PAN