IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11726 of 2008 Between: T. Appa Rao S/o. Late Baswaiah R/o. Balajainagar, Kodad, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC,. Rep. bys its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Kodad, Nalgonda 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 appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned punishment proceeding No. P1/2(11)/02 dt. 28-10-2003 of withholding increment for a period of (2) years which will have effect on future increments as arbitrary unjust, capricious and in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of Reg. 12(2) of APSRTC , C.C. & Reg. 1967 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the above increments along with its consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Driver in the Kadapa Depot of APSRTC. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 14.08.2003, alleging that he caused an accident without taking any precautions on 29.06.2002. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with that, the second respondent passed an order, dated 28.10.2003, imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual increments for a period of two years, with cumulative effect and directing recovery of Rs.1,000/- towards damages to the vehicle. The petitioner assails the said order, contending that a major penalty was imposed against him, without conducting departmental enquiry. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This Court would have entertained the writ petition and examined the legality of the impugned order, but for the fact that the petitioner had the departmental remedies of appeal and review, the departmental authorities would be in a better position to examine the entire record and take proper view of the matter. The petitioner contends that due to lack of proper advise, he could not present the appeal within time. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal and the appeal shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation, if it is presented within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:12.06.2008 GJ