Telangana High Court
WP/26603/2006 of P.B.Fakruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 26603 of 2006 Dated: 22.12.2006 Between: P.B. Fakruddin, S/o Rayudu, aged about 54 years, Occ: Junior Assistant (F), E.56710, Kadapa Depot, R/o Kadapa and another. .... PETITIONERS AND A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 26603 of 2006
Dated: 22.12.2006
Between:
P.B. Fakruddin, S/o Rayudu, aged about 54 years, Occ: Junior Assistant(F), E.56710, Kadapa Depot, R/o Kadapa and another.
AND
.... PETITIONERS
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. 26603 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 petitioners 1 and 2 state that as against the punishmentorders dated 18.09.2006, passed by the 3[rd] respondent-DivisionalManager, ordering to recover an amount of Rs.12,828/- and Rs.18,954/-from their salaries in 15 and 20 instalments respectively towardspecuniary loss caused to the Corporation and reducing their annualincrements by one and two incremental stages respectively withcumulative effect, they preferred separate appeals before the 2[nd]respondent-Executive Director (C & N), and the 2[nd] respondent-Executive Director (C & N), by proceedings dated 18.11.2006, rejectedthe appeal filed by the 1[st] petitioner, whereas the appeal filed by the 2[nd]petitioner was partly allowed modifying the punishment to that ofdeferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect, andconfirming the order of recovery of amount. Aggrieved by the saidorders, they filed review petitions 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, they filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC.
The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for thepetitioners is that the respondents-Corporation, without considering thereview petitions filed by the petitioners, are proceeding to implement theorders of punishment including the recovery of amount from the salariesof the petitioners. He, thus, sought permission of this Court to move appropriate applications before the 1[st] respondent-Managing Directorfor stay of the punishment orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC expressed noobjection 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 petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate applicationsbefore the 1[st] respondent-Managing Director seeking stay of thepunishment orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3, and on suchapplications being filed, the 1[st] respondent-Managing Director shallconsider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordancewith law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from thedate of receipt of said applications.
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.