IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8234 of 2008 Between: G.Srinivas Rao S/o.Kotaiah, E.392060 R/o.near Old Bus Stand, Sattenapally (Village & Mandal) Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Regional Manager, APSRTC Guntur Region, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Depot Manager, APSRTC Sattenapally Bus Depot, Guntur District. .....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 an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings No. 01/25(1)/2005-SAP, dt. 27.10.2005 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the proceedings No. 01/25(1)/2005-SAP, dt. 27.10.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent by granting increments to the petitioner and pass such further other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.VEERASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in the APSRTC. A charge sheet was issued to him on 25.07.2005 alleging that he remained absent unauthorisedly, and thereby, committed acts of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Departmental enquiry was conducted. Through order, dated 27.10.2005, the first respondent passed an order imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and required the petitioner to explain as to why the period of suspension shall not be treated as not on duty. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment imposed against him, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Regional Manager, Guntur, the first respondent herein. His grievance is that the appeal has not been disposed of, so far. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Though submissions are made on merits of the matter by placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Kottapati Jayachandra Reddy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadiri Depot, Anantapur District[1], this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the matter, on account of the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending. The appeal is said to be pending for the past two years. It cannot brook any further delay. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, on the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.17.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} [1] 2005 (6) ALD 247