IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16793 of 2004 Between: M.Krishna Reddy, S/o.M.Bal Reddy, R/o.Domadugu Village, Bouthapalli Mandal, Jannaram, Medak Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND Govt. of India, Air Force Academy, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings No.AFA/9101/4/Wel dated 13-04-2004 including the punishment of removal from service vide order AFA/9101/4/Wel dated 13-07-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No.AFA/9101/4/Wel, dated 13.07.2004 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner joined in Air Force Academy as a civilian welfare bus driver in the year 1989. On 19.03.2004 the excise officials seized 103 bottles of different types of liquor from the house of the petitioner and as the petitioner could not give satisfactory explanation, a case in Crime No.290/03-04 was registered by the S.H.O, Naspur Excise and Prohibition P.S, Medak District. The department also initiated disciplinary proceedings and after holding a detailed enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry officer’s report, he was removed from service with effect from 13.07.2004. 3. In the light of the said acquittal, the petitioner approached the authorities and gave a representation on 02.12.2008 and requested the respondent to consider his case for reinstatement. As the same is not considered and no orders have been passed, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. When once a representation is given and the same is to be considered, it may not be proper for this Court to express any view about the merits of the case. As the said representation is very much pending, it is proper for this Court to direct the authorities i.e., the respondent to dispose of the said representation dated 02.12.2008 within a period of Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 02.12.2008 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dated June 19, 2009 KSH