HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 32970 of 2010 DATED: 09.12.2011 Between: C.S. Narayana .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC and another .. Respondents O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus for the relief which reads “To declare the action of the respondents in imposing punishment of reduction of petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for all purposes, as arbitrary and illegal and set aside the final order No. 02/95(42)08-WNPT, dated 28.11.2008 of the 1st respondent herein, and consequently direct the respondents to allow the reduced increments to the petitioner simultaneously treating the suspension period as on duty for all purposes”. The punishment was given on the ground of non-issuance of tickets to certain passengers by the petitioner as the conductor of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing registration Number AP10Z 9659 on 19.06.2008 bound from Atmakur to Wanaparthy. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. and perused the material placed on record. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that three passengers concerned were examined and they gave statements that they were given tickets by the petitioner as the Conductor of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing registration No. AP10Z 9659 while they were traveling from Atmakur to Wanaparthy on 19.06.2008 and when necessary check up was made by the T.T.Is. concerned, relevant tickets were not properly verified, and hence, the discrepancy occurred. On the other hand, no speaking order was passed by the Depot Manager, Wanaparthy after the conclusion of the enquiry, and therefore, the order of the same authority is not tenable. However, he has further submitted that it is enough if the punishment is modified to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner admitted his guilt and on that ground the punishment imposed against him is tenable, and further, his corresponding appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent, and hence, it is the discretion of the appellate authority to dispose of the matter as per law. Since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending adjudication before the appellate authority, I am of the opinion that it only is advisable to direct the appellate authority to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. to consider the appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 09.12.2011 Note: Furnish copy in one week B/o bcj