IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13425 of 2008 Between: A. Anjaneyulu, s/o. Narayana, Zonal Work Shops, Uppal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Works Manager, APSRTC, Zonal Work Shops, Uppal, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Works Manager-I, APSRTC, Zonal Work Shops, Uppal, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in recovering an amount of Rs. 96,149/- from the petitioner is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and against to the principles of natural justice by setting aside proceedings No. ZWS8/758(1)/2003-UPL, dt. 12-10-2007 of the respondent o. 1 herein and consequently direct the respondents not to recover any amounts from the petitioners' salary in concerned with above proceedings and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Leading Hand in Zonal Work Shops, Uppal of the A.P.S.R.T.C. As part of the duty, he maintains records for issuance of spare parts. A charge sheet, dated 27.04.2002, was issued, wherein, it was alleged that he failed to maintain proper account of the drawl and issuance of the spares. After conducting departmental enquiry, an Office Order, dated 19.11.2002, was passed, directing deferment of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Thereafter, another charge sheet was issued on 25.07.2003, alleging that the acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner led to loss of Rs.3,36,319/-. After considering the reply given by the petitioner, an order of recovery was passed on 03.09.2007 against the petitioner. The petitioner availed the remedy of departmental appeal before the first respondent. Vide his order, dated 25.04.2008, the first respondent had set aside the order of stoppage of increment passed by the second respondent and modified the same to the one for censured. Though he discussed the validity of the order, dated 12.10.2007, he did not indicate the result thereon. The petitioner states that the second respondent started effecting deduction of instalments in pursuance of the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the two orders referred to above, the first respondent has undertaken extensive discussion in his order, dated 25.04.2008, on the entire issue. The amount that was sought to be deducted together with the instalment was also extensively referred to. However, when it came to the question of moulding the relief, he confined the same to the one vis-à-vis the order, dated 19.11.2002. The result portion of the order is silent about the proceedings, dated 12.10.2007. The first respondent needs to make this aspect clear. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the first respondent shall examine the matter and indicate his opinion as to the manner in which the order, dated 12.10.2007, passed against the petitioner by the second respondent shall be dealt with. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents shall not effect any deduction from the salary of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.06.2008. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}