Telangana High Court
WP/26634/2006 of B.Raghava Reddy, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 26634 of 2006 Dated: 22.12.2006 Between: B. Raghava Reddy, S/o B. Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 56 years, Occ: Deputy Superintendent (T), E.45705, R/o Kadapa, Kadapa District. .... PETITIONER AND A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 26634 of 2006
Dated: 22.12.2006
Between:
B. Raghava Reddy, S/o B. Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 56 years, Occ:Deputy Superintendent (T), E.45705, R/o Kadapa, Kadapa District.
AND
.... PETITIONER
A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabadand others.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWrit Petition No. 26634 of 2006
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 states that as against the punishment orders dated18.09.2006, passed by the 3[rd] respondent-Divisional Manager, orderingto recover an amount of Rs.18,954/- from his salary in 19 instalmentstowards pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation and reducing hisannual increments by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, hepreferred appeal before the 2[nd] respondent-Executive Director (C & N),and the 2[nd] respondent-Executive Director (C & N), by proceedingsdated 18.11.2006, partly allowed the same modifying the punishment tothat of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect, andconfirming the order of recovery of amount. Aggrieved by the saidorders, he filed review petition before the 1[st] respondent-ManagingDirector on 15.12.2006 and requested him to suspend the operation ofthe punishment orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3, but so far noorders have been passed. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC.
The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the respondents-Corporation, without considering thereview petition filed by the petitioner, are proceeding to implement theorders of punishment including the recovery of amount from the salary ofthe petitioner. He, thus, sought a direction from this Court to permit himto move appropriate application before the 1[st] respondent-ManagingDirector for stay of the punishment orders passed by the respondents 2and 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC
expressed no objection for the same.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and inview of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriateto dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
The petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application beforethe 1[st] respondent-Managing Director seeking stay of the punishmentorders passed by the respondents 2 and 3, and on such applicationbeing filed, the 1[st] respondent-Managing Director shall consider thesame and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law,expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt of said application.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Date: 22.12.2006Note:Issue CC by Tuesday.(B/O)NSR/ISL
___________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.