THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4293 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the Pulivendula Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, alleging that he retained an amount of Rs.18/- from a passenger. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 30-05-2001, directing removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Kadapa. The appeal was partly allowed, through proceedings dated 28-06-2001. The order of removal was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service; and punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect; was imposed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a review before the 2nd respondent. Through order dated 01-10-2001, the 2nd respondent rejected the review, on the ground that its is time barred. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the petitioner presented the review, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. However, it is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent is conferred with the power, to entertain an application for review, even beyond the stipulated time, if proper explanation is offered. In the instant case, the Appellate Authority passed the order on 28-06-2001. It is not known as to when the copy thereof was made available to the petitioner. He presented the review on 28-09-2001. The 2nd respondent simply calculated the days, between the date of order, passed by the Divisional Manager, and the date of presentation. Further, it is not as if the petitioner availed the remedy, years after the date of the order, in the appeal. The time, between the date of order in the appeal and the date of presentation, is just three months. The 2nd respondent ought not to have taken hyper-technical view of the matter. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the order under challenge is set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to entertain the review, without raising any objection, as to limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-07-2008. KO