THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W. P. NOs. 23056 OF 2007 & 6375 OF 2008 COMON ORDER: A trivial issue, between an Aided Educational Institution and its employee, has given rise to a large number of proceedings, before one Forum, or the other. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P.No.6375 of 2008. The petitioner is an Aided Educational Institution and the 4th respondent is employed as a Record Assistant. It initiated proceedings against the 4th respondent, alleging acts of indiscipline, viz; unauthorized absence from 1.12.2003 to 29.3.2004, and from 7.2.2005 to 7.4.2005. An inquiry was conducted, and the charges leveled against the 4th respondent, were held proved. Ultimately, through an order dated 31.8.2006, the petitioner imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increment, for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. The 4th respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent, against the order passed by the petitioner. The appeal was allowed by the 3rd respondent, through his order dated 30.5.2007. The 2nd respondent confirmed the same, vide order dated 19.9.2007, in the further appeal preferred by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent, under Section 81(2) of the A.P. Education Act. The 4th respondent filed W.P.No.23056 of 2007, with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein, to implement the order dated 30.5.2007, passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, in turn, filed W.P.No.6375 of 2008, complaining that the 1st respondent did not pass any orders, on the application for stay filed by them. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. As the things stand now, no grievance worth its name, exists, either for the petitioner, or for the 4th respondent. The punishment imposed against the 4th respondent was stoppage of annual increment, for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. With the expiry of one year, the effect thereof, virtually ceases to exist. At any rate, the 3rd respondent had set aside the order and substituted the punishment, with the one of warning. So far as the 4th respondent is concerned, strictly speaking, no additional benefit as such, would accrue to him, even if the order passed by the 3rd respondent is implemented. On the other hand, the warning will operate against him. Neither the implementation of the order of the 3rd respondent, nor any stay in favour of the petitioner, as prayed for before the 1st respondent, would bring about any material change, vis-à-vis either of them. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. The 1st respondent shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal presented before it by the petitioner, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 27th June 2008 PAN