Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, 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 working in Thamarassery Depot of the respondent Corporation, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and placed under suspension through Ext.P1 proceedings dated 10.10.2014. The principal charge seems to be that he has been running the bus habitually late and that it amounts to dereliction of duty. Assailing Ext.P1 order of suspension, the petitioner is said to have filed statutory appeal in Ext.P6 before the 2nd respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal the petitioner filed the writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C) No.28972 of 2014
2
and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, without advert to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 statutory appeal filed by 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.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
sj