Telangana High Court
WP/26465/2006 of B.R.Raju, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 26465 of 2006 Dated: 27.12.2006 Between: B.R. Raju, S/o Pichiraju, aged about 52 years, Occ: Assistant Depot Clerk, E.No.79580, R/o Kadapa. .... PETITIONER AND A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 26465 of 2006
Dated: 27.12.2006
Between:
B.R. Raju, S/o Pichiraju, aged about 52 years, Occ: Assistant DepotClerk, E.No.79580, R/o Kadapa.
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. 26465 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 20 instalmentstowards pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation and reducing his payby two incremental stages with cumulative effect and treating thesuspension period as not on duty, he preferred appeal before the 2[nd]respondent-Executive Director (C & N), and the 2[nd] respondent-Executive Director (C & N), by proceedings dated 18.11.2006, partlyallowed the same modifying the punishment to that of deferment of oneannual increment with cumulative effect, and confirming the order ofrecovery of amount. Aggrieved by the said orders, he filed reviewpetition before the 1[st] respondent-Managing Director on 11.12.2006 and requested him tosuspend the operation of the punishment orders passed by therespondents 2 and 3, but so far no orders have been passed. Hence, hefiled 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-Managing Director for stay of the punishment orders passed by the respondents 2and 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTCexpressed 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.
___________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.