Telangana High Court
WP/27315/2005 of E.P.Ch.Rao, E-102283, Driver, Chilakaluripet Depot, Vs The APSRTC., rep.by its Regional Manager, Guntur on 27 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27315 of 2005 Date:27.12.2005 E.P.Ch.Rao. --------PETITIONER APSRTC, rep by its Regional Manager and another. ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in the Chilakaluripet Depot of APSRTC, 2nd respondent herein. On the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27315 of 2005
Date:27.12.2005
E.P.Ch.Rao.
APSRTC, rep by its Regional Manager and another.
--------PETITIONER
---------RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is employed as a Driver in the Chilakaluripet Depot of APSRTC,2[nd] respondent herein. On the allegation that he drove the bus in rash andnegligent manner, the 2[nd] respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 05.01.1999.The explanation of the petitioner thereto was considered and departmentalenquiry was conducted. A report was submitted on 27.03.1999, holding that thepetitioner is found guilty of the charges. After following the regular procedure,the 2[nd] respondent passed an order, dated 19.06.1999, imposing thepunishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The appealpreferred by the petitioner against the same was dismissed. Thereafter, thepetitioner filed a review before the 1[st] respondent on 10.11.2002. His grievanceis that though three years have lapsed, the review has not yet been disposedof.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counselfor the respondents.
The review filed by the petitioner is pending with the 1[st] respondent, for the pastthree years. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is undergoing hardship, on account of stoppage of increments. The petitioner states that he has since beenacquitted in the Criminal Case. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent ought to haveexpedited the disposal of the review.
Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 1[st] respondent to passappropriate orders in the review filed by the petitioner, within a period of two (2)months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orderas to costs.
Jsu
_________
27.12.2005