IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32723 of 2011 Between: M.Maddileti … Petitioner And APSRTC., Rep.by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32723 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 17.04.2010 of the 3rd respondent in treating the period of suspension from 21.06.2005 to 21.10.2005 as leave due as unjust, arbitrary, contrary to regulations, and discriminatory besides violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the said suspension period as on duty as per Regulation 21(2)(a) of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967, as the petitioner was fully exonerated from the charges and no punishment was imposed and the suspension itself was unjustified. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager (T) in Nagarkurnool Depot, during the year 2005, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 21.06.2005 by the 4th respondent, Divisional Manager, on the alleged charges, which reads as under: “For having failed to comply with the instructions of DM/NGKL and left head quarters without any prior permission on 6.6.2005 due to your sudden absence for duties, the traffic wing has faced lot of inconvenience and caused dislocation of services, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No.28 (viii) of APSRTC Employees 9Conduct) Regulations 1963 2) For having absented to your duties from 6.6.2005 to 10.06.2005 and 13.6.2005 onwards on the pretext of availing joining time without sanction of the unit officer, which constitutes misconduct under Reg No.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963”. It is his case that before issuing the order of suspension, no preliminary enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to explain about the charges leveled against him. The 4th respondent obtained a report from the Depot Manager on 21.06.2005 and on the same day, without following principles of natural justice, he passed order of suspension and sent to the residential address of the petitioner by post while the petitioner was under sick from 13.06.2005 and to that effect he submitted a sick certificate to the respondents. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was conducted wherein, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the first charge of leaving the headquarters without prior permission was not proved and the second charge of availing the joining time without sanction of the unit officer, and thus absented from 06.06.2005 to 10.06.2005 and on 13.06.2005 onwards was proved. Taking into consideration the said enquiry report, the 4th respondent lifted the suspension by order dated 20.10.2005 and kept the matter pending till April, 2008. The petitioner was under bona fide impression that his case was closed as there was no basis for violation of any regulation by the petitioner and an assurance was also given by the 4th respondent to that effect but he imposed the punishment of censure but he did not speak anything about the treatment of the period of suspension. Thereafter, on filing the appeal by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent, Regional Manager, he issued proceedings dated 13.09.2008 modifying the punishment of censure to that of warning but the 3rd respondent also did not say anything about the treatment of the suspension period. Therefore, the petitioner once again submitted another representation to the 3rd respondent to treat the period of suspension as per the Regulations and in response to which, the 3rd respondent passed another order dated 17.04.2010 to treat the period of suspension from 21.06.2005 to 20.10.2005 as leave. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed a review before the 2nd respondent, Executive Director, on 31.01.2011 with a request to treat the period of suspension as the period spent on duty since the suspension itself was not justified and no punishment was imposed on the petitioner and he was fully exonerated of the charges leveled against him. But the 2nd respondent did not initiate any action on the review application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while modifying the order of suspension by the 3rd respondent to that of punishment of censure, he did not speak anything about the treatment during suspension period. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent with a request to treat the said suspension period as on duty but the 3rd respondent passed another order dated 17.04.2010 treating the period of suspension as on leave. Assailing which, the petitioner filed review application before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending without passing any orders on the said review application. He further submitted that since the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges leveled against him and no punishment was imposed, therefore, the suspension period of the petitioner may be treated as on duty. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation would submit that since it is categorical submission that the review has been filed by the petitioner and the same is pending before the 2nd respondent, therefore, the 2nd respondent may be directed to pass appropriate orders on the said review application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation and perused the material on record. Admittedly, aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed a review application on 31.01.2011 before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. If any order is passed on merits in the instant case, it amounts to allowing parallel proceedings, which is not desirable. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction. As the review application is pending before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent, Executive Director, is directed to consider the review application dated 31.01.2011, stated to have been filed by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 28.12.2011 LSK