IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8070 of 2008 Between: C.S.Vasulu S/o. Chinna Ramudu R/o. Komatikunta Village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tadiparti Depot, Tadiparti, Anantha[pur District. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ananthapur Division, Anantapur. .....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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. 01/118(4)/2006-TDP, dt. 29-1-2007 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art. 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to re-fix the salary of the petitioner by adding two increments in the interest of the justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.D.GOWD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in the APSRTC. A charge-sheet-cum-order of suspension was issued to him on 28.11.2006, alleging that he quarrelled with a conductor in the Tadipatri Depot. On the basis of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a domestic enquiry was conducted and through order, dated 29.01.2007, the first respondent imposed the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, which shall have the effect on future increments. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as not on duty. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal is not disposed of, as yet. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order. Howsoever convincing the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner may be, this Court cannot entertain the Writ Petition, when the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.15.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}