IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No:30895 OF 2011 Between: K.R. Krishna. - - - Petitioner. AND The Executive Director (V & V) Zones, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vizianagaram and three others. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30895 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the Petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the Petitioner’s appeal dated 05-07-2010 by the first Respondent as per the G.O.Rt. No.387, T, R & B (TR-II) Department, dated 21-04-2010 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the G.O.Rt.No.387, dated 21-04-2010 and consequently direct the Respondents herein to consider the appeal dated 05-07-2010 submitted by the Petitioner as per G.O.Rt.No.387, dated 21-04-2010 in the interest of Justice. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows : The Petitioner worked as a Conductor in the Respondents Corporation at Maddipalem Bus Depot. He was placed under suspension on the ground of committing cash and ticket irregularities i.e. reissued a ticket No.036/749405 of Rs.3-00 to a lady passenger. Thereafter the second Respondent conducted an enquiry against the Petitioner, which resulted in his removal from service vide order PA/95[232]/2006-MDP, dated 05-01-2006. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager (U) Visakhanaptnam on 07-02-2007 and the same was rejected by order dated 07-02-2007. Subsequently, the Petitioner submitted a Review Petition before the third Respondent on 13-04-2007, which was also rejected vide Proc.No.PA/19[25]/2007-RM, VSP on 10-07-2007 without considering the merits. While so, the Petitioner made a representation to the Managing Director on 31-03-2008 for his reinstatement into service by setting aside the punishment of removal imposed by the second Respondent. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for settlement before the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam in PLC No.1381 of 2009, which was closed on 04-03-2011. Pending dispute before the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam, the Government issued G.O.Rt. No.387, T, R & B [TR-II) Dept. dated 21-04-2010, giving one more opportunity to the delinquent employees to represent their cases before the Zonal Executive Directors, who have to review the cases based on the petitions duly incorporating a new provision as Regulation 29A to the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations 1967. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted an Appeal before the first Respondent on 05-07-2010, but so far he has not considered the same. Hence, the present Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents-A.P.S.R.T.C. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the issuance of the G.O.Rt.No.387, dated 21-04-2010 he made a representation to the Director and Chairman, APSRTC on 31-03-2008 to consider his case for reinstatement by setting aside the punishment of removal but the Respondent has not considered the representation made by the Petitioner, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the G.O.Rt.No.387, dated 21-04-2010. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents would submit that if the representation made by the Petitioner is pending before the first Respondent, the same may be directed to be disposed by the first Respondent. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the Petitioner was removed from service by the second Respondent vide order PA/95[232]/2006-MDP, dated 05-01-2006, which became final by virtue of the dismissal of Appeal by the Divisional Manager on 07-02-2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation on 13- 04-2007 to the third respondent to reconsider his case, which was also rejected vide Proc.No.PA/19[25]/2007-RM, VSP on 10-07-2007. While so, the Government issued the G.O.Rt. No.387, dated 21-04-2010, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : “2………………..Therefore, the Board has decided to provide one more opportunity for the employees to represent their cases and the Zonal Executive Directors will be advised to review the cases based on the petitions duly incorporating a new provision as Regulation 29A to the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations 1967. 3. In the circumstances explained above, the Government hereby agree with the resolution of the Board to incorporate a new provision as Regulation 29A to the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations 1967 and to give another opportunity of appeal for all employees including Drivers and Conductors in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.” In these circumstances, the Petitioner seems to have made a representation dated 05-07-2010 to the first Respondent, which is pending on his file. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, it is just and reasonable to direct the first Respondent to consider the representation said to have been made by the Petitioner on 05-07- 2010 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J. November 24, 2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 339 WRIT PETITION No.30895 OF 2011 November, 24, 2011 DSH