IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26173 of 2008 Between: M. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ramaiah, Bapanaiah Nagar, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager, B.S.N.L., Chandramoulu Nagar, Guntur. 2 The Divisional Engineer, Telecom, B.S.N.L. Narasaraopet, Guntur District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing penalty vide proceedings in Memo No. DET-NSV/Disc/MVL/SAT/07-08/3 dated @ NSV the 26-2-2008 withholding of one increment for a period of one year when it falls due without cumulative effect besides order the period of unauthorized absence from duty for one day on 1-9-2006 be treated as dies-non without considering petitioners explanation is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-a-side the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.S.MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.(SC FOR B.S.N.L) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the impugned proceedings dated 26.2.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent, Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Narasaraopet, Guntur imposing the punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year when it falls due without cumulative effect besides ordering the period of unauthorized absence from duty for one day on 1.9.2006 to be treated as dies-non. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent – Divisional Engineer, Telecom, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the learned standing counsel for BSNL, on instructions, submits that the said appeal is still pending. In the circumstances, since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned orders and the same is still pending, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the said appeal expeditiously. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.2.12.2008 msv