IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17779 OF 2011 BETWEEN: A. Rajan Reddy S/o. A. Govind Reddy …. Petitioner AND The Assistant General Manager (Admn.) APTDC, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and others. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17779 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.APTDC/ Admn/P2/22/2001, dated 01-06-2011, terminating the services of the petitioner as General Helper Grade – II (Emp.ID No.1857) under the guise of non-extension of the contract with effect from 07-06-2011 without issuing any charge memo and without causing any enquiry, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as General Helper – II by granting all the benefits from the date of the impugned order of termination. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was selected on comparative basis and appointed as Electrician in the 3rd respondent Corporation and posted at different places, and presently working as General Helper Grade – II at Taramati Baradari Hotel, Gandipet, Hyderabad. While so, on 01-06- 2011, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner committed some mistake in allotting a room in the Hotel and that he violated the terms of the contract, his contract services are not extended with effect from 07-05- 2011, in lieu of notice, he was paid one month wages. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner stated that he has nothing to do with the allotment of rooms and it was the duty of the Receptionist. But, the 2nd respondent without issuing any charge memo, terminated the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 03-06-2011, stating that as the Receptionist was not in the counter, by mistake the incident was happened and requested to do justice to him. The respondents are not taking any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard. 4. The petitioner has already submitted a representation to the respondents admitting his mistake in the allotment of the room. So, the respondents have to take an appropriate decision on the representation made by the petitioner. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate decision and pass necessary orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 03-06-2011 in accordance with the Rules and Regulations, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J June 28, 2011. KTL