HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU Writ Appeal No.1876 of 2005 Oral Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) … 1. Heard both sides. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. 3. The appellant herein who is the unsuccessful writ petitioner assails the order of the learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a statutory review, as contemplated under Regulation 29 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. However, after hearing the counsel on either side, it transpires that the orders impugned in the writ petition were passed by the third and fourth respondents respectively without any jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge and the order dated 24-11-2004 of the third respondent, which was challenged in the writ petition, are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed and the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the second respondent, who is the appellate authority, to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties. No costs. _________________ (B. Prakash Rao, J) ___________________ (Dr.G. Yethirajulu, J) 4th October 2005 svs