1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7633 OF 2008 Ashok s/o Ramchandrarao Kharat, Age : 56 years, Occ.Nil, R/o 35, Laxmi Colony, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Ministry of State Transport, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Divisional Traffic Superintendent (Default)/ Competent Authority, State Transport Corporation, Aurangabad 3. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.N. Pagare, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent no.1; Mrs R.D. Reddy, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner by this petition seeks the issuance of a writ directing respondent no.3 to decide appeal filed by the petitioner dated 25/29.3.2004, which according to the petitioner is pending. The petitioner also prays for other reliefs, which cannot be granted at this stage. 3. According to the petitioner the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk with the respondent no. 3 and after rendering service for about 23 years, a charge-shee4t came to be issued by respondent no.3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge- sheet denying the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner was thereafter issued with a second charge-sheet based on the similar allegations. According to the petitioner an enquiry came to be conducted and thereafter the petitioner came to be dismissed from service by order dated 23.2.2004. On 25/29.3.2004 the petitioner has submitted an appeal before respondent no.3, which according to the petitioner is pending consideration. 3 4. We have heard Shri S.N. Pagare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs R.R. Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3. Since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before respondent no.3, we are inclined to allow this petition and direct respondent no.3 to decide the said appeal, if pending, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. In the light of that, Rule is made absolute by directing respondent no.3 to decide the appeal, if pending, in accordance with law, within eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] amj/wp7633.08 4 WRIT PETITION NO.7633 OF 2008 Date of decision : 7th July, 2009 For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.K. DESHPANDE 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [Anant Joshi] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge. 5