Telangana High Court
WP/26605/2006 of S. Ghjouse Peer, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 26605 of 2006 Dated: 22.12.2006 Between: S. Ghouse Peer, S/o Syed Rahmat Miya, aged about 54 years, Occ: Depot Clerk (T & P), E. 47836 and another. .... PETITIONERS AND A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 26605 of 2006
Dated: 22.12.2006
Between:
S. Ghouse Peer, S/o Syed Rahmat Miya, aged about 54 years, Occ:Depot Clerk (T & P), E. 47836 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. 26605 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.18,954/- and Rs.18,954/-from their salaries in 20 instalments respectively towards pecuniary losscaused to the Corporation and reducing their annual increments by twoincremental stages respectively with cumulative effect, they preferredseparate appeals 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, 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 a direction from this Court to permithim to move appropriate applications before the 1[st] respondent-Managing Director for stay of the punishment orders passed by the respondents 2 and 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 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.