IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1535 of 2009 Between: K.Ravi Subbaaramaiah Office of Executive Director (K&N), A.P.S.R.T.C. Kadapa. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Director (K&N), A.P.S.R.T.C. Kadapa. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kadapa. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Badvel Depot, Kadapa District. 4 A.P.S.R.T.C. Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme represented by its Secretary, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....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 call for the records relating to impugned order No.M1/756(3)08-BDVL dt.18.11.2008 from the Respondent Corporation and issue an appropriate writ order, direction especially in the nature of Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Certiorari declaring the impugned order as being illegal, unjust, contrary to law in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATA RAMAIAH KARUMURI Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in APSRTC and posted to Badvel Depot, where he reported for duty on 01.03.1999. While working there, departmental proceedings have been initiated against him for the following charge. “For having failed to obtain outstanding loan amount from Secretary, SRBS Hyderabad and found responsible for the financial loss caused to the sureties to a tune of Rs.24,345/- while you were settling the accounts of Sri R. Ramaiah, E.45748, who was removed from service, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. The enquiry officer found him guilty of the charge. Thereupon, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Badvel Depot-third respondent passed final orders ordering for recovery of Rs.24,345/- repayable in 17 instalments i.e., Rs.1500/- in 16 instalments and Rs.345/- in 17th instalment. The petitioner questioned the order passed by the third respondent by filing an appeal before the first respondent. The appeal is stated to be pending. Hence he approached this Court assailing the inaction of the first respondent in considering his appeal. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel of APSRTC received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The factual aspect of the petitioner filing appeal before the first respondent is not contradicted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the first respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 3rd February, 2009 Js. C.C. in one week