Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Driver, was placed under suspension by the respondent Corporation through Exhibit P3. Aggrieved thereby, though the petitioner filed the present writ petition, when it had been brought to the notice of the learned counsel W.P.(c) No. 31002 of 2014 2 for the petitioner on the last occasion that writ could not be sustained in view of alternative statutory remedy available, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to examine the issue. Today, when the matter is listed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the petitioner has already filed I.A. No. 16378/2014, seeking leave of this Court to accept certain documents. On perusal of the said Interlocutory Application, it is seen that the petitioner filed Exhibit P8 representation on 21.11.2014 before the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation seeking revocation of suspension enforced through Exhibit P3.
3. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent W.P.(c) No. 31002 of 2014 3 corporation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider Exhibit P8 representation/appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-